Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Pensions

Robert Goodwill: What assessment he has made of the implications of the recent European Court of Justice ruling for the Government's response to the parliamentary ombudsman's report "Trusting in the Pensions Promise".

John Hutton: As I made clear in my written statement on 26 January, we are giving careful consideration to the ruling of the European Court of Justice and the implications, if any, for the financial assistance scheme and the Pension Protection Fund.

Robert Goodwill: The Government have ignored both the parliamentary ombudsman and the House's Public Administration Committee. Now the European Court of Justice has ruled that the UK pension rules offer inadequate protection for workers such as those formerly employed by Scarborough coach builder Henlys. Could it be that the solution to the problem is being blocked by the Treasury until the new incumbent at No. 10 can come in and take the credit?

John Hutton: No, that is not true. This is a serious issue, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's latter point was a serious contribution to the proceedings. We have put nearly £2.5 billion into the financial assistance scheme to provide taxpayers' money to compensate those who have lost the most when their occupational pension schemes have collapsed owing to employer insolvency. That is not an insignificant response; it is an extremely positive response. It is worth bearing in mind that there were no such public funds available to support people who were caught up in these terrible situations before 2004. In relation to the Henlys scheme, in which I understand the hon. Gentleman has a constituency interest, I can tell him and the House that 38 members of the Henlys scheme have been assessed for support by the financial assistance scheme, and 32 of them are now in payment.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee, of which I am a member, has strongly recommended that the Government pay up. How much would that cost, and is it not affordable?

John Hutton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's role on the Select Committee, and I remember clearly the day that I gave evidence to it. We have already published the estimates of the cost of a full compensation scheme, which we have made available to the House and outside. It would cost significantly more than the £2.5 billion that we have pledged to it. The Government have tried hard to be supportive of those who have lost the most, but we must also be mindful that we are using public resources in a compensation scheme, so we have to balance what is fair to the taxpayer with what is fair to those who have lost the most. We have tried hard to strike the right balance.

David Laws: So far the Government have, as we have heard, ignored the conclusions of the ombudsman and the recommendations of the Select Committee, and they have now been criticised by the European Court of Justice. Can the Secretary of State give us a promise that if, in the upcoming judicial review, the courts in this country find that the Government have acted unlawfully in rejecting the recommendations and the findings of the ombudsman, it will be time for the Government to do the decent thing and bring forward a fair compensation package for the individuals in question? Will he give us that guarantee?

John Hutton: Of course the Government—any Government—will follow the obligations imposed on them by the courts and the due legal process. There is no question of our doing otherwise. On Wednesday in the High Court we will argue our case very strongly with regard to the way in which we have responded to the ombudsman's report. In relation to the European Court of Justice case, it is worth reminding ourselves that the case is still continuing before the High Court in England. There is therefore an obvious limitation on what I can say today about how we might respond to any subsequent ruling by the Court.

Gisela Stuart: The Secretary of State can be proud of both the financial assistance scheme and the Pension Protection Fund. However, does he accept that by not looking more carefully at the ombudsman's ruling, he is undermining the Government's attempts to establish trust in the long term in pension provision? Even if the problems go back a long time ago to a Conservative Government, by not meeting the ombudsman's requests, we are undermining that trust.

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her words of support in relation to the actions that we have taken—but it is simply not true that we have ignored the ombudsman's report as she suggested. We produced an extra £2 billion-worth of public money to go into the financial assistance scheme after the ombudsman produced her report, so I do not believe it is right to say that we have ignored the ombudsman's report. We have the greatest respect for the office of the ombudsman and we had the advantage of seeing her report in draft some considerable time before it was published. I can assure my hon. Friend, and every Member of the House, that we have given it the fullest and most careful consideration.

Philip Hammond: The Secretary of State talks about the financial assistance scheme as though it had a fixed cost; he said that the Government were finding £2.5 billion. Will he confirm, however, that the Government's commitment under that scheme is in fact to pay, without limit, top-ups to a defined benefit level, and that as yet, they know neither the total value of the assets nor the liabilities of the schemes? Does he therefore acknowledge that the total cost could be much higher—or, indeed, much lower—than the figure that he has cited?

John Hutton: We have made significant provision, and tried to estimate the costs as best we can. Obviously we will have to keep the costs under review, and see what happens in practice. However, I believe that we have made prudent and adequate provision for the losses that those who are closest to retirement have sustained.

Philip Hammond: The point is that this is an open-ended, defined benefit commitment, and the state has already accepted that risk. Will the Secretary of State therefore reconsider whether forcing failed schemes to purchase annuities for members is the best use of those members' funds? After all, the PPF is not forced to purchase annuities.

John Hutton: We certainly look continuously at all those issues. Personally, I think that it is sensible and prudent to require annuitisation in those circumstances, because that is a sensible way of managing risk for the long term. We are giving careful consideration to the wider issues raised by the European Court of Justice ruling, and to what that will mean looking forward to the future of the financial assistance scheme and the PPF.

Housing Benefit

Bob Blizzard: How many local authorities did not achieve the performance targets for the administration of housing benefit in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

James Plaskitt: Average performance in housing benefit administration across all local authorities is improving significantly. Last year, four local authorities failed to meet the Department's minimum standards for housing benefit administration, 38 councils were assessed as meeting only the minimum requirements, but 226 were providing a good service and a further 128 were providing an excellent service.

Bob Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but for more than five years, housing benefit in my constituency has not been administered efficiently by Waveney district council; on occasions, it has been disastrously bad. Despite some recent improvement, about half the local landlords will not now let their properties to people on housing benefit, and I am worried that some of the poorest people are being disadvantaged as a result. Will my hon. Friend monitor the situation carefully? Might the new housing allowance pilots provide the answer to the problem?

James Plaskitt: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am monitoring the situation carefully. I now see monthly reports on the performance of Waveney council, because there is clearly a problem there. The council had £1 million from us via the performance standards fund, and as a result it got its housing benefit administration up to about the national average in the early part of 2006. Since then, however, its performance has deteriorated sharply, which is having exactly the effects that my hon. Friend described. The council is now taking 64 days to process new claims, compared with the national average of 34 days. Officials in my Department met officials from the council last week, and made it clear that the council's performance was unacceptable and improvement was urgently needed. We cannot see any reason why its performance should be so bad, and it is about time that Conservative-run council got its act together.

Philip Hollobone: It is estimated that, in the year to March 2006, some £770 million of housing benefit was overpaid, almost £200 million of which was due to official error. How does the Minister intend to tackle that problem?

James Plaskitt: The latest figures, published last week, show that official error as a proportion of housing benefit expenditure is at a steady share of the total. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the fraud losses in housing benefit have fallen over the past four or five years by 47 per cent., and are now at their lowest ever recorded level. The biggest increase in error is down to customer error. I should point out that last year we recovered £300 million from the overpayment figure that he mentioned. My Department and the local authorities are together aiming to improve performance in respect of error in housing benefit, and I shall be launching our part of the strategy with the local authorities this week. This is part of the broad counter-error strategy, which I launched last month, designed to reduce error losses across the whole benefit system by £1 billion over five years.

Worklessness

Andrew Pelling: What steps his Department is taking to tackle London's rate of worklessness.

Jim Murphy: Over the past decade, claimant unemployment in London has halved from 320,000 to 162,000, but we are determined to go further to build on that success in the next few months.

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful to the Minister for his very brief answer—but the economic participation rate is much lower in London than in the rest of the economy. This is leaving us with a shortfall of about £5 billion of potential contribution to the UK's gross domestic product. What is the Department doing to secure jobs for many of the people who are not participating in London's economy, perhaps by encouraging foreign direct investment in deprived parts of the city, for example? What cross-departmental work is being done to co-ordinate those programmes, to argue the advantages of investment in public infrastructure, and perhaps to suggest that the Mayor should be responsible for skills training in London, so that we can achieve positive economic development in those deprived communities?

Jim Murphy: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work in helping to stimulate the London labour market. In fact, until recently he had three separate jobs of his own: as the Member of Parliament for Croydon, Central, as a member of the London assembly, and—until recently—as a councillor in Croydon. In many ways, he is a one-man labour market all on his own.
	However, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious point about the challenges that still exist in London. Two big initiatives, of which I think he will be aware, are about to be rolled out across the city. The city strategy pilots will address specific challenges in the two distinct areas of east and west London. Additionally, pathways support for incapacity benefit customers will roll out across the city by the end of next year. Based on the experience across the rest of the UK, that will be a real boost to economic activity in London.

Frank Field: What lessons do the Government draw from the fact that although 2.5 million new jobs have been created since they were elected, many have been filled by immigrants coming here and wishing to work? Given the stubbornness of youth unemployment in London with regard to moving downwards, might not the Government consider time-limiting benefit?

Jim Murphy: Given his experience in government at the Department for Work and Pensions and his more recent experience, my right hon. Friend is retaining a close interest in the welfare-to-work review, and he acknowledges that there has been real progress. As he said, 2.5 million more people are in work—and 29 million people are now in work in the UK.
	I should add that less than 1 per cent. of those currently in our labour market are migrants from eastern Europe, although we would not get that impression from reading some of the popular press. There are real challenges, which are the subject of our ongoing long-term welfare review, in relation to what more we can do to support UK-born citizens in developing their skills in connection with the labour market. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the review currently being undertaken by David Freud.

Mark Pritchard: Is there not a case for encouraging British citizens who do not speak English to learn English, so that they can access the workplace, make a contribution to society, increase social cohesion and improve community relations?
	Further to the comments about time-limited benefits made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), if, through a lack of language skills, British citizens unable to speak English do not access the workplace, should they not have their unemployment benefits cut off after 12 months? Is there not a great difference between a disability and an inability? Not speaking English is an inability, which can be overcome.

Jim Murphy: We are always considering ways to reduce the barriers to the labour market for all sorts of our customers, regardless of their circumstances, background, disability, skills level, age or place of abode in the United Kingdom. One of the issues is how we overcome the multiple labour market disadvantages faced by some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine.
	Without wishing to repeat the point that I offered in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I should add that we are awaiting the outcome of David Freud's review on the long-term challenges of welfare to work. We can then have a sensible conversation about some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, entirely reasonably, this afternoon.

Andrew Love: The problem in my constituency is that whereas in recent months unemployment has been stagnant—slightly rising, in fact—the number of job vacancies for skilled employees has gone up. There is a mismatch. I know that that is not the Minister's responsibility, but surely the Department for Work and Pensions must do something to bring together the people and skills that are necessary to address the problem in constituencies such as mine.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is one of the significant and enduring challenges that we still face. More than 900,000 people are on jobseeker's allowance, but there are 600,000 vacancies in the economy. We have to be smarter at matching those still out of work with vacancies in the economy.
	Part of that is about skills but part is about how we market the jobs. In future, through Jobcentre Plus, we should market jobs with flexible opportunities and family-friendly hours so that we maximise every opportunity not only to put people into work but to ensure that they stay in sustained employment that pays and lifts their families out of poverty.

Equal Opportunities

Robert Wilson: What assessment he has made of his Department's performance in increasing the number of people with disabilities in employment.

Anne McGuire: Through a combination of stable economic growth and our successful labour market policies, including pathways to work, we have increased the employment rate of disabled people by more than 9 percentage points since 1998.

Robert Wilson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but last year research by the Disability Rights Commission found that only one person in 10 with a severe learning disability had a job, and only two people in 10 with a mental health problem had a job. That research is supported by the increasing number of people I see at my surgeries who have suffered mental illness and find it difficult to get back into work. What are the Government doing specifically to target those very low rates of employment and get those people back to work?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman has given the House some valuable information—although it is, of course, not news to the Department for Work and Pensions. That is why the Welfare Reform Bill is currently going through Parliament. It is also why we have adjusted and reviewed the personal capability assessment. He is right in identifying people with fluctuating mental health conditions, whose needs—their support needs, in particular—were perhaps not taken into account. Those with learning disabilities are way at the edge of the labour market, in spite of the fact that many people with learning disabilities would like to get into a job. Indeed, I am buoyed up by the optimism that there is around the country about how many of those with learning disabilities can move into jobs.

Anne Begg: A week last Friday, I was invited to speak at the launch of the roll-out of pathways to work in the Aberdeen area. It was an extremely good and positive event. People were very happy that pathways to work was coming to Aberdeen. However, as usual at such events, although some employers were present, there were not enough of them. What are the Government going to do to get employers involved in the whole process? Without them—without the jobs—what the Government are doing in getting people work-ready does not add up to very much.

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend is correct. There are three elements to our welfare reform strategy. One is obviously the legislation. Another is how we have reformed the way in which we work, through Jobcentre Plus and various other programmes, especially in relation to disability employment. The third element, however, is the expectation of employers, which we are making a priority through our employers panels and by engaging with local employers and local employers' associations, particularly in the small and medium-sized enterprises sector, where there are a great number of jobs to be had.
	I was in another part of the north of Scotland when my colleagues were in Aberdeen, and in Inverness and Stornoway I saw fantastic examples of what is happening, including at the Shirlie project in Inverness, which works in particular with young people whose ambitions have been thwarted over many years because of a lack of expectations about what they could do. Given the right support, through pathways, they can achieve a significant amount in the employment market.

Jeremy Hunt: What example does the Minister think it sets to the private sector and other Departments that during the period in which the DWP has been tightening its belt as a response to the Gershon process, the number of disabled employees has shrunk by more than double the rate experienced by other employees? The disability equality duty came into practice in December, so when will the Government practise what they preach?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman highlights something that—as I think that in another forum he would accept—I have often highlighted, which is that the public sector has to take its responsibility for employing more disabled people. Yes, that includes my Department. It also includes the 44,000 or thereabouts public authorities across the country. I would not have thought that this was a party political point, as he seeks to portray it. It is to do with opening up employment opportunities for disabled people. The DWP is taking that responsibility very seriously.

Brian Jenkins: As my hon. Friend will recall, local authorities used to employ people with disadvantages, and the jobs were almost ring-fenced—but compulsory competitive tendering forced them out of the system. What will she do to remind local authorities of the vital role that they can play in putting such people on the ladder to employment?

Anne McGuire: It is true that we used to have a quota system for the employment of disabled people, but I hope my hon. Friend agrees that that system became a ceiling for what they could achieve rather than a floor allowing them to move into other jobs. The new civil rights legislation removed the quota system, but as my hon. Friend says, we must think about how to encourage local authorities, and public authorities generally, to expand the opportunities that they offer disabled people in employment. The disability equality duty, which came into force only a few weeks ago, will start to offer some of those opportunities, and I expect significant improvement in the months and years to come.

Pensions

David Jones: What recent representations he has received on the level of the Pension Protection Fund levy; and if he will make a statement.

James Purnell: My Department is in regular discussion with employers and the pensions industry, including scheme managers and members. We have received a handful of representations on the Pension Protection Fund levy, but its level is a matter for the board of the Pension Protection Fund. The board announced its proposals on 21 December, and consultation closed on Friday 2 February.

David Jones: The Minister will be aware that while the overall PPF levy for 2007-08 is more than doubling to £675 million, the risk-based element is increasing fourfold. Does he share the concern expressed by commentators that overall the increase is greatest for the weaker schemes, which are least able to afford it? Does he recognise that the burden of paying the increased levy may, paradoxically, force some of those schemes into insolvency?

James Purnell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a cap enabling the 5 per cent. of weaker schemes to be cross-subsidised by the rest of the system—but his question illustrates the difficulty of striking the right balance. On the one hand his party's Front Benchers are saying that there should be more protection for people who have suffered as a result of failed company pension schemes; on the other hand, he is saying that the levy should be lower. The levy is only 2 per cent. of the amount that companies are investing in their pension schemes, and we therefore think it a reasonable burden to impose in order to give people the security that they need.

David Winnick: A constituent who came to my surgery on Saturday is due to retire in March this year. He said that he had been told five years ago by Caparo and a pension scheme that he was to receive a pension of £5,500 annually. He has now been told that the amount will be less than half that. Can my hon. Friend understand the depression that that man is experiencing now that all his plans for retirement have been undermined? What assistance can be provided for him, when the pledge that was made to him, which I have now seen, is to be so completely withdrawn?

James Purnell: I am surprised at those facts if the scheme qualified for the Pension Protection Fund, which generally gives people 90 per cent. of the pension that they expected to receive. I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend's constituent to discuss the matter, but I should point out that there is now a Pension Protection Fund for people who are saving in company pensions. That deals with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said earlier about the need to restore trust in the system and reassure people that there is a safety net on which they can rely.

Tony Baldry: This is all about pension protection. What action are the Government taking to ensure that private pension schemes do not fail and collapse in the future?

James Purnell: That is a good point. At the same time as introducing the PPF, we have tightened the regulation by bringing in the Pensions Regulator, which has much tougher powers to ensure that schemes are properly funded. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that Watson Wyatt found recently that pension schemes are at their healthiest level since 1999, so it is working in practice: the Pensions Regulator does mean that pension funds are much better funded.

Dundee City Strategy

James McGovern: If he will make a statement on the Department's Dundee city strategy.

Jim Murphy: Dundee has now submitted its ambitious business plans. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Dundee Partnership wants to develop a more co-ordinated approach to support more Dundonians into work.

James McGovern: I thank the Minister for that response, and for his visit to Dundee 10 days ago to see the progress being made by the Dundee city strategy. Since 2001, Dundee has achieved employment growth of between 2 and 4.5 per cent. Credit for that must be given to Dundee city council, the Scottish Executive and the Government in Westminster, all of which are, of course, Labour led. Will he confirm his Department's continued support for the Dundee city strategy in providing new skills, new training and new jobs to maintain Dundee's prosperity and growth?

Jim Murphy: We are determined to do that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his work in supporting the consortiums in Dundee in developing their plans. He will be aware that today the rapid reaction force that is looking into the proposed redundancies at NCR is meeting again. Obviously, we are determined to work with the city council, under the leadership of Jill Shimi, and others, to support more people to get a chance to work. Dundee has set itself the ambition of reducing the proportion of worklessness by 30 per cent. over three years. That requires a co-ordinated approach by all the agencies that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Stewart Hosie: As part of that co-ordinated approach, and as part of achieving growth in an ever more globalised economy, the Minister will understand the need for lots of skills, not least in foreign languages. Although it is a devolved matter, can he assure the House that next time he meets his colleagues in the Scottish Executive he will put some pressure on them, if he can, to provide some additional resources to Dundee university to avoid cuts, not least in the modern languages department?

Jim Murphy: In anticipation of the hon. Gentleman's question, I had intended to say that because of the reasonable way in which he put it, I would spare him the lecture on why breaking up Britain would be bad for Scottish jobs—so I am left with a choice. However, I take on board the points that he made. That matter is not, of course, the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, but we are determined to do all we can to support the Dundee labour market within the wider Scottish labour market, in a stable United Kingdom economy and UK labour market.

Benefits System

Daniel Kawczynski: If he will make a statement on his Department's report "Getting Welfare Right: Tackling Error in the Benefits System".

James Plaskitt: The Government published their error reduction strategy on 24 January. Building on our success in reducing fraud losses to their lowest ever recorded level, that strategy sets out a comprehensive and ambitious plan for reducing error in the benefits system by £1 billion over the next five years.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank the Minister for that reply. The report calls for ensuring that less money is paid out incorrectly, but says that that will rely on customer compliance. Does the Minister really believe that people who rely on that money will own up when they have been paid too much, especially if returning it brings them under further scrutiny?

James Plaskitt: As the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies the strategy carefully, there are three dimensions to it: prevention, or trying to stop error getting into the system in the first place; correction, or putting right error already in the stock of benefits; and compliance, whereby customers let us know about changes in circumstances that they are obliged to report to us because they have an effect on their benefit entitlement. A new compliance pilot is under way in Cambridgeshire. We will study carefully how that goes, but the early findings are very encouraging. Compliance will help us to achieve the £1 billion reduction in error across the system.

Eric Illsley: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether that initiative will extend to local authorities, where calculations are made in respect of housing benefit and council tax benefit? Their success rate is 80 per cent., so 20 per cent. of decisions made on those benefits are wrong. On Friday, the disability information advice line in my constituency raised with me the case of a housing benefit calculation whereby for the past six years a constituent of mine was paid £30 a week when she should have been paid £46 a week. That error was twice compounded by supervisory decisions. Will there be an initiative to deal with local authority calculations as well?

James Plaskitt: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I want to reassure him that in devising the strategy published last week, staff in the Department worked closely with staff in local authorities. He is quite right that there are many linked decisions by the Department and local authorities, and the key to reducing error is to have more data sharing in the system. That is a crucial part of the strategy, and we are already putting in place an IT platform that allows DWP data to be transferred directly to local authority offices on a weekly basis.

David Ruffley: Overpayments due to fraud and error in the four major benefits total a staggering £6 billion in the past four years. Overpayments due to customer confusion are up 50 per cent. in the past nine years, and last year alone, underpayments totalled nearly £1 billion, with £0.25 billion underpaid to disabled families. We all agree that we need a simpler, fairer system, so will Ministers recommit today to cutting complexity, and will they explain to the House why they allocated only five full-time staff to the benefit simplification unit and only two full-time staff to the error taskforce?

James Plaskitt: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should choose to decry the work of those departments, because the benefit simplification unit has been in place since January 2006 and promotes best practice across the system. It has already achieved simplifications to the social fund, and it has aligned capital limits across all working-age benefits. The small team to which he referred is responsible for revoking 200 statutory instruments, thereby simplifying the benefits system. May I remind him of the record? Fraud is at its lowest ever recorded level, and it is half the 1997 level. It was cut by a further £100 million just last year, and error was reduced last year by £100 million. Sanctions and prosecutions have increased fivefold since 1997, and our strategy is broadly endorsed by the National Audit Office, so I can tell the hon. Gentleman: better my grip than his lip.

Child Support

Andrew MacKay: What the expected level of outstanding Child Support Agency debt is that he proposes to write off in establishing the new Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.

John Hutton: We have decided against seeking a general power to write off debt owed to the Child Support Agency. Where the parent with care or the non-resident parent is dead, or where the parent with care has asked for cessation of debt recovery, for example following mutual reconciliation, we have decided that it would not be sensible to pursue such debt. I do not expect those debts to exceed £50 million.

Andrew MacKay: But should the Secretary of State not come clean with hard-pressed families? The CSA has admitted that £1.3 billion-worth of child maintenance owed by absent parents has not been paid, yet the Department has said that it is actively pursuing only some £500 million, which means that £800 million is likely to be written off. Can that possibly be right?

John Hutton: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the interim maintenance assessment liabilities that accrued between 1993 and the end of 2000, when we stopped making interim maintenance assessments. They were originally designed in the child support legislation to encourage non-resident parents to pay child maintenance, but they singularly failed to do so. We are not going to write off that debt, but it will be revalued, which is the sensible thing to do. I hope that we can recover about £500 million, and we will actively pursue that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should always be honest with voters and our constituents, and to some extent that money will be extremely difficult to recover, given the very nature of those cases. We have a stark and simple choice: we can either pursue what we think is recoverable and go at it hammer and tongs, or we can spend a lot of time and, I am afraid, a lot of public money, pursuing debt that we know is never going to be recoverable. That is the choice that confronts us. We have decided not to take the general power to write off debt, which is what Sir David Henshaw recommended, and we are going to give the CSA and its successor a range of tough, new enforcement powers that are unprecedented in civil debt recovery to break the culture of non-payment of maintenance which, I am afraid, has become widespread in our society.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State will know that it is encouraging to hear of the limitations that he has put on that particular process, but I hope that he also realises that many people—mothers, in particular—have spent many years going through the whole galling procedure of trying to recover money and are still being told to continue to fill in forms and have little hope of getting any kind of settlement at all. I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that that is an unacceptable diminution of their status—and that it beggars belief.

John Hutton: I agree that the record in respect of recovering debt that is owed to parents who are carers has not been good enough. That is why we have decided to replace the Child Support Agency with a completely different organisation that will have a different range of powers to break the culture of non-payment. As a result, there will be an important opportunity for Members to send out a signal of the kind that I am sure that my hon. Friend believes in—that although it is obviously the case that relationships end, the financial responsibilities of parents to their children never do. Unfortunately, under current legislation it has proved far too easy for people to escape their liabilities, and we are determined to clamp down on that.

Jo Swinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the reasons for the high levels of outstanding CSA debt is the ridiculously long repayment terms that are given? A constituent of mine is owed £9,000 and she has been told that her ex-husband can repay it over 39 years. Will the CSA replacement body get tough on the maintenance cheats and enforce repayments over much shorter time scales, to make sure that the money gets to the children while they are still children?

John Hutton: Yes, and we have said that in the White Paper.

Annette Brooke: Does the Secretary of State understand the anger of those parents who are owed thousands of pounds by a former partner and who subsequently find, when a child changes residence to that of that partner, that they have deductions from their own salary and hence lose twice? Does he agree that such cases should be a priority in respect of pursuing arrears?

John Hutton: Yes.

Maria Miller: Tomorrow, Conservatives will hold a specialist seminar on the future of child support and will look at debt write-off. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the growth in CSA debt? Figures show that outstanding debt is being reduced by £7 million a month but that new debt is growing by £20 million a month. Is that trend set to continue?

John Hutton: Yes it will, and I think that we have to be clear, honest and straight with people about that. It is accumulating at that amount a month because of the accumulated legacy of debt over the past 15 years, which, with the best will in the world, neither the hon. Lady nor anyone else in this place or outside has a magic wand to deal with. We are strengthening the powers of recovery. We have taken legislation through the House to remove the six-year limit that restricts our ability to pursue debt. We are taking a number of steps to enforce debt recovery more successfully and intelligently. My understanding is that the hon. Lady and her party support our reforms of the CSA to make sure that we make further progress, and I am grateful to her and her hon. Friends for that support.

Julie Kirkbride: In answer to the question, the Secretary of State said that he would allow parents with care to ask for the write-off of debt for parents without care under the new rules that he intends to bring in. Will that only be in cases where the couple have come back together, or will that be possible in all cases? Also, has he considered the impact on some parents with care who might be threatened or bullied by their ex-partner into taking up that measure?

John Hutton: I was referring to the new power to offset liabilities that have accrued while one parent was the non-resident parent and the other parent was the parent with care when those roles are reversed. That is a perfectly sensible way of dealing with such problems. That is how we intend that new power to be exercised, and I hope that the hon. Lady will support it.

Child Poverty

Stewart Jackson: If he will make a statement on his Department's progress towards achieving its 2010 child poverty target.

Jim Murphy: We have succeeded in reversing the long-term trend of rising child poverty and have made the biggest improvement of any EU country over the past decade. But there is more that we can do, which is why we are currently refreshing our child poverty strategy.

Stewart Jackson: I thank the Minister for that answer. The outgoing Prime Minister is searching for a legacy. That legacy is that the UK has the highest proportion in Europe of children living in workless households, and that 3.4 million children live in poverty. The Government's target to reduce by a quarter the level of child poverty recorded in 1999 was recently missed, so what confidence can we have that they can meet their target to halve child poverty before 2011?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman's observations would have greater credibility had he acknowledged the progress that has been made. Under the previous Government, 210 children fell into poverty each and every day. Under this Government, 240 children are lifted out of poverty every single day. So while it is often lazily commented that there is no difference between the two major parties in this country, there is one difference that my party is rightly proud of.

Winter Fuel Payments

Greg Mulholland: How much has been allocated for winter fuel payments in 2007-08; and if he will make a statement.

Anne McGuire: The forecast for spending on winter fuel payments for winter 2007-08 is just over £2 billion.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Minister for her answer, but is she aware that last November, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) received a written answer from the Department of Trade and Industry saying that, rather than moving towards the target to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016, the number of houses in fuel poverty was due to increase by 1 million? Given that, what plans does her Department have to ensure that vulnerable groups such as pensioners and the severely disabled will not spend next winter in fuel poverty?

Anne McGuire: Of course, 11.5 million pensioner households receive the winter fuel allowance every year in November or December, and those payments are significant and well timed in order for older citizens to meet their heating bills. This Government do not have any apologies to make for ensuring that that £200 winter fuel allowance—it is more than £300 if a person is over 80—is paid regularly to older people's households, particularly if one considers that, as recently as 10 years ago, the only thing that pensioner households could look forward to was a £69 pension and a £10 Christmas bonus.

Hywel Williams: What would the Minister say to my constituent Sue Woods, whose brother celebrated his 60th birthday in the autumn, did not get the fuel allowance and died before he was 61? Now, £200 is a lot of money for any family, but it is the principle that rankles with my constituent.

Anne McGuire: I can appreciate the disappointment of somebody whose birthday falls the day before whatever date we have as a cut-off, but there has to be a qualification date and that date is set. I appreciate that people cannot change their birthdays to suit the qualification date, but this is just something that we all have to live with—we are either on one side of the birthday threshold, or the other. The important issue is that when the hon. Gentleman's constituent reaches the age of 61, he will receive his £200 winter fuel allowance.

Equal Opportunities

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: What steps he is taking to increase employment opportunities for older workers; and if he will make a statement.

James Purnell: The Government have put in place a range of measures to help older people to remain in, or return to, work. Since 1997, the employment rate of people aged 50 to 69 has increased by 6.7 per cent. We are tackling age discrimination through our "Age Positive" campaign, which promotes good practice and the benefits of an age-diverse work force to employers. Last October, we brought the age regulations into force, which introduced a default retirement age of 65, together with a right for employees to request to work beyond this age. We will be monitoring those regulations' effect on the employment of older workers.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank the Minister for his reply and I welcome the increased opportunities for older people. A constituent of mine was very disappointed, on reaching his 65th birthday, to be told that he had to retire, and his request was not considered. Does the Minister agree that, as people are living for longer and in better health, employers' perceptions of what is old will have to be revised?

James Purnell: That is absolutely right and it is exactly why the age discrimination regulations are so important. We try to communicate to people the benefits of having a work force with a range of ages because older workers bring all sorts of benefits, such as expertise and job loyalty. It is also worth noting that more than half the increase in employment overall has come from people aged between 50 and 69, and that more than a third has come from those over the state pension age. So real progress is being made in helping people to work for longer when they are older.

Danny Alexander: In tackling the problems of age-related discrimination in employment in the welcome way that the Minister describes, will he also pay particular attention to the need to tackle disability discrimination in employment? The older that someone gets, the more likely they are to be disabled, and disability discrimination can often be a major reason that older workers are not as welcome in the workplace as younger ones. Will he make sure that, in addition to the measures he has taken to deal with age discrimination, there are publicity campaigns aimed at disability discrimination among employers?

James Purnell: We obviously have to tackle discrimination wherever it happens. The pathways to work programme will help people in that situation, and Jobcentre Plus can help people with a range of measures whether their issues are to do with occupational health or disability more generally.

Jim Devine: What advice can my hon. Friend give me to give the constituents who attended my surgery last Friday? They worked in an abattoir run by a Mr. Kenny Henderson, but a few days ago the factory door was locked against them. Many of them are in the older age group. They had to pay for their own protective clothing and knives and had also been paid less than the minimum wage for years. How can I initiate a prosecution?

James Purnell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is out of order.

Benefits System

Angela Watkinson: What plans he has for simplifying the benefits system for people with disabilities.

Anne McGuire: We agree that the welfare system should be simpler, more transparent and accessible for all our customers, not least for disabled people. For those with health problems and disabilities, the new employment and support allowance will integrate into a single structure both earnings replacement and income-related benefits.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Minister think that it is wrong that people who suffer from deteriorating conditions such as multiple sclerosis are still sent complicated forms from time to time when there is no prospect of them improving or getting better?

Anne McGuire: I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that in any benefits system there is a need for review, on a regular or irregular basis. I hope that she will also accept that sometimes the review process identifies additional benefits to which a person—she gives the example of someone with multiple sclerosis—may be entitled. We should not always put a negative slant on the review of disability benefits. The review process often picks up that someone may be entitled to additional support through the benefit system.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Lords Reform

Evan Harris: What representations he has received on the appropriateness of clerics sitting in a reformed second Chamber purely on the basis of their position in their religious organisations.

Jack Straw: I have received three letters on that subject.

Evan Harris: I thank the Leader of the House for his full answer. Will he accept my representation on the issue? He will recognise that the UK is the only democratic country to give seats in its legislature to religious representatives as of right. Giving seats to religious leaders, including those of the Church of England, as of right embeds sexism in our legislature, because of the male/female ratio of those leaders. If individuals are to be appointed, it should be on their own merits and not on the basis that they lead a particular organisation.

Jack Straw: I have a number of things to say to the hon. Gentleman. First, we are by no means the only country in the world with the equivalent of a state Church, as many European countries have one. Secondly, we may be an exception, but we are also an exception in being the only country in Europe that I can think of that has survived for three centuries without a bloody revolution, occupation or the humiliation of neutrality in a just war. We can have lengthy discussions on the issue, but my view is that Lord Wakeham and his fellow commissioners were correct when they said:
	"While there is no direct or logical connection between the establishment of the Church of England and the presence of Church of England bishops in the 'second chamber', their removal would be likely to raise the whole question of the relationship between Church, State and Monarchy, with unpredictable consequences."

Andrew MacKinlay: There would be very welcome consequences if we looked into that issue. My right hon. Friend said that we are not the only country that has a state Church. That is true, but England is the only country that allows its Church's prelates to sit in the House of Lords. Representatives of the Church of Scotland, the Church of Ireland and the Church of Wales are not there, and they should not be there. Hands up all those people who are communicants of the Church of England—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be quiet for a while and let the Leader of the House answer.

Jack Straw: As the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, it by definition does not have bishops. It is in a very privileged position under the Church of Scotland Act 1921. Its liturgy was laid down in the other place, as I recall from a lecture by the late Donald Dewar. We will have some big debates about the future of the House of Lords. If folk want to pursue the disestablishment of the Church of England, that is fine, but we should not do that by the back door and we should take account of the fact that most of the other faith groups want to keep some representation of the Anglican bishops in the House.

Bob Spink: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that further reform to remove clerics from the other place will not guarantee that Parliament is improved—quite the contrary? Does he accept that perhaps it is time to pause for thought and that the status quo might be the best way forward for the other place?

Jack Straw: Opinions differ on this issue in all parties. I think that the hon. Gentleman's party is committed to a substantially elected Chamber. I have a letter from one of his party leaders saying that that means 80 per cent. We will see whether that is backed by sentiment on the Opposition Benches. What I am seeking to do, and what I will make further announcements about quickly, is to provide an opportunity for the issue to be debated thoroughly and for the House then to come to a decision one way or another.

War

Graham Allen: What consideration he has given to proposals for requiring the House's approval for going to war; and if he will make a statement.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is aware that the Government have considered and responded to the report of the Lords Constitution Committee, "Waging war: Parliament's role and responsibility". As I said to him during oral questions on 8 January,
	"we have to ensure at all times and in all circumstances the safety of our service personnel, but subject to that and to emergency situations, I cannot conceive of a situation where the Commons should not have a key role to play in decisions in respect of going to war."—[ Official Report, 8 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 19.]

Graham Allen: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at the last oral questions there was a very positive and constructive response from both sides of the House on settling on a sensible basis the relationship between Parliament and the Executive in times of war. The House of Lords has now contributed its view, too. Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree that we are ever closer to a point at which a resolution or a statute will be put before this House, so that the matter can be resolved once and for all?

Jack Straw: I hope so. I do not think that there is an argument of principle. Everybody accepts that when it comes to decisions in principle to go to war, the House, as the elected Chamber, has to make the decision. Everybody also accepts that there could be emergency situations and other circumstances relating to the safety of our personnel in which that decision would have to happen retrospectively, but I do not believe that it is impossible to square that circle.

Douglas Hogg: I welcome what the Leader of the House has said and I endorse his sentiments, but may I press him again, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) did, to incorporate those sentiments in a firm resolution of the House, alternatively, in statutory language?

Jack Straw: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, in the Government response to the Lords Constitution Committee, we said that we were considering carefully what it had proposed, which is essentially a resolution that would lie on the Standing Orders. We are giving that further and active consideration at the moment.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his positive comments. I thought back to what he said on the last occasion, on 8 January, but I have to say that the idea of a developing convention simply will not wash, not least because we have a substantial deployment in Afghanistan, which has never been subject to a resolution of the House, although I and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches would vote for it. The matter of urgency, too, can be dealt with easily; it is in most European legislatures—for example, the instrument of Government that deals with it in the Riksdag in Sweden. Would it be worth the Leader of the House revisiting the Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill, introduced by my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill? That seems to be a potential statutory basis for the proposals that the Leader of the House is suggesting.

Jack Straw: I have great regard for Lord Lester of Herne Hill—I am very happy to revisit what he said—but this is an issue on which senior officers and others in the Ministry of Defence are anxious, not because they want to bypass Parliament's decisions, but because they do not want to get into the situation that other European countries have got into and which I have seen, where there is amendment to the rules of engagement by the elected Parliament. That can lead to risible circumstances—for example, some members of the NATO international security assistance force cannot do their job—so we must be careful. When we are asking our armed forces to put their lives in harm's way in a number of theatres, we must be very careful to ensure that we take them with us, and that is something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is very anxious about.

Shailesh Vara: This matter of war touches on the prerogative powers of Ministers and, as such, addresses the crucial issue of the balance of power between the Government and Parliament. For example, last week, air passenger duty was doubled without any approval from Parliament. What precisely is the Leader of the House doing to restore the balance of power between Parliament and the Government and to ensure that we, the elected representatives, can speak up effectively in the Chamber for the British people?

Jack Straw: We have done a great deal to restrict and reduce the royal prerogative, which goes back to the powers exercised by the monarch before the Glorious Revolution and the Rill of Rights of 1689, and we should make further progress in that respect, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong about air passenger duty, because that is dealt with under statutes that have been passed by the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Printing Costs

Chris Bryant: How much was spent on printing (a) early-day motions and (b) written parliamentary questions in the last period for which figures are available.

Nick Harvey: The last period for which figures are available is the 2005-06 financial year, when the cost of printing early-day motions was £627,000 and of written questions approximately £1,464,000.

Chris Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but there are 36 pages of early-day motions today, despite the fact that only two of them are new, having been tabled last Thursday, and there are seven pages of written questions. Would it not make far more sense for us to publish most of those on the parliamentary website, rather than every day in the Order Paper, so that Parliament does not look hypocritical when it tries to persuade people to save money and trees?

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. There has been huge growth in the popularity of early-day motions and in the number of written questions tabled, in consequence of which a lot more pages are being printed, but the Procedure Committee took evidence in December about just the sort of matters to which he is giving his attention, and I urge him to make any suggestion that he might have to that Committee in advance of it reporting to the House and making any suggestions that it might have for change.

Avian Influenza Outbreak

David Miliband: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outbreak of avian influenza in Suffolk. Just after 5 pm on Thursday 1 February, the state veterinary service was contacted by a private vet who suspected an avian notifiable disease at a poultry farm in Suffolk. The farm near Upper Holton held 159,000 turkeys housed in 22 sheds. The vet raised concerns because deaths were taking place in one shed, containing 7,000 birds, beyond the normal frequency and rate.
	My Department promptly enforced legal restrictions on the farm, so that no birds, people or equipment could move off those premises, preventing any possible spread of the disease. Arrangements were quickly made for a veterinary officer from the local animal health office to inspect the premises and take samples for testing by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, Surrey.
	Preliminary results were received late Friday evening indicating the presence of avian influenza of the H5 strain. At that stage, the pathogenicity of the virus was not known. My Department issued a press notice and alerted the poultry industry, stakeholders and the European Commission. In line with contingency planning arrangements, local and national disease control centres were established.
	Further tests were carried out overnight, and based on the results received on Saturday morning, Fred Landeg, the deputy chief veterinary officer, confirmed the presence of H5N1 avian influenza. We imposed a 3 km protection zone and 10 km surveillance zone around the infected premises, to restrict movements of poultry and require their isolation from wild birds in those areas. In addition, we banned all bird gatherings—including fairs, markets, shows and races—across England, Scotland and Wales. The Great Britain poultry register was used to issue text alerts to all those registered.
	By Saturday afternoon, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency had completed further tests and were able to confirm that this was the highly pathogenic H5N1 Asian strain, which has spread widely in recent years. My officials had been working closely with our established group of ornithological experts to establish what a proportionate and risk-based response would be to such a finding. Based on their advice, my Department imposed a wider restricted zone covering east Suffolk and south-east Norfolk, an area of about 2,090 sq km. Within that zone, we are requiring poultry and other captive birds to be housed or, if that is not possible, to be isolated from contact with wild birds. The Opposition and local MPs were kept informed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare.
	On the infected premises, the humane slaughter of all the remaining birds began on Saturday under the supervision of the state veterinary service—once the Health Protection Agency had taken all necessary steps, through medication and protective clothing, to assure the health and safety of those carrying out that work. I attended a meeting of the civil contingencies committee—known as Cobra—this morning and can report to the House that we expect the culling to be completed today. Once the birds are slaughtered, the carcases are being transported under escort in sealed leak-proof lorries to a plant in Staffordshire where they are being rendered. Rendering involves the crushing and grinding of carcases, followed by heat treatment in a sealed vessel to reduce the moisture content and to kill micro-organisms. The leftover product from the rendering of the birds is then incinerated to ensure total destruction. There is full protection for workers at the site and the general public in the surrounding area.
	The Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency have been fully involved in our response throughout. All the people involved have been issued with personal protection equipment and are being offered the antiviral drug Tamiflu and seasonal human flu vaccination. In addition, seasonal flu vaccination has been available for poultry workers since early January. The risk to the general public is judged by health experts to be negligible. In particular, the Food Standards Agency advises that there is no risk in eating any sort of properly cooked poultry, including turkey, and eggs.
	At this stage, we do not know how the disease arrived in Suffolk. A full epidemiological report will be produced by our experts as soon as possible and made publicly available. The state veterinary service is carrying out rapid and urgent investigations both on the infected premises themselves and by testing poultry farms and collecting dead wild birds in the protection and surveillance zones. Outside the restricted zones, our programme of wild bird surveillance continues, with 4,000 birds having been tested in the last five months alone. I urge keepers of birds to be vigilant and to exercise good biosecurity. In particular, it is important that they act quickly and contact their local animal health office if they suspect disease.
	From Friday afternoon, we have been working with the European Commission and leaders of the poultry industry and retail organisations, consulting them on the decisions that we have been taking and jointly tackling practical issues as they arise. That is in addition to my Department's regular communications with the wider poultry stakeholder community through e-mail, telephone conferencing and the website. We have also been in direct contact with poultry keepers using the text messaging system of the Great Britain poultry register. Further written communication will be issued today.
	Experience from previous outbreaks in Europe, and in this country in the past, has shown that in all cases where disease was found in domestic poultry, the rapid action taken to restrict movements, to house birds and, above all, to cull all the birds on the infected premises, has eradicated the disease without further spread. I am satisfied that the response in this case has been rapid, well co-ordinated and appropriate. Contingency planning arrangements have been developed over the last five years in an open way. The first avian influenza-specific plan was published in March 2004. These plans are updated on a regular basis—most recently in the updated plan that was published last December and which is available on the web—and thus far they have proven their worth. Our goals in this case are clear: to stamp out the disease, to protect public health, to protect animal health and welfare, and to regain disease-free status for the UK. I would like to record my thanks to all those who have worked so hard since Thursday evening from across Departments, delivery partners and the poultry industry, at the local, regional and national level, to help to achieve those goals as soon as possible.

Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for the statement and for advance sight of it. I also thank him for the open and responsible way in which he and his Ministers have kept the Opposition informed of progress and have kept in touch with local Members. Clearly, this is a blow to the poultry industry, but it is vital that it does not become a crisis. I agree with the Secretary of State's four goals, set out at the end of his statement, and I suggest one more: to reassure the public that eating poultry is entirely safe. Is he in touch with retailers, for example, about that?
	I join the Secretary of State in thanking all those involved in handling this problem for their hard and, no doubt in some cases, distressing work. Will he join me in congratulating Suffolk police, Suffolk county council and Waveney district council on demonstrating a high level of co-operation and on their efficient response to the problem?
	The Government's chief scientist has said that we are better prepared for an outbreak of avian flu than any other nation. Bernard Matthews has also said that it works to the highest levels of biosecurity. Does that not make the causes of the outbreak all the more puzzling? Does not the Secretary of State share my concern that one of his Ministers has already said that we may never know the exact cause? Does it not make it extremely difficult to know whether the Government are taking appropriate action to prevent further outbreaks if we do not know how the disease got here in the first place?
	It has been suggested that the outbreak may be related to wild birds, but has there been any increase in the number of dead birds being reported in the last five months? What plans does the Secretary of State have to step up the surveillance efforts? Does he think it purely a coincidence that a Bernard Matthews-owned farm in Hungary should recently have been hit by H5NI? What steps is he taking to eliminate the Hungarian connection from the inquiries?
	The right hon. Gentleman states that following the notification to the state veterinary service on 1 February, arrangements were quickly made for a veterinary officer to attend and take samples. Will he be more specific as to what "quickly" means here—within a couple of hours or the following day?
	The Secretary of State will be aware that in this part of Suffolk there are many people who keep a few chickens on their land. Is he satisfied that they are receiving timely and accurate information about what to do? What proportion of the total number of UK poultry owners does he believe is on the Great Britain poultry register? What stocks of H5N1 vaccination for humans do the Government currently possess? Health Ministers say that those may be used to vaccinate front-line health workers. What plans does he have to make the vaccine available to poultry workers, who may be even more in the front line? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the arrangements for removing the culled animals and transporting them for disposal and rendering are sufficiently biosecure?
	We all hope that the market for poultry products will not be affected by these events, but in the case of adverse market impacts, will the Secretary of State draw down the UK's entitlement to EU support funding—something of great importance to an already beleaguered industry? What measures is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that UK poultry exports will not be adversely affected? I have already seen a report that Japan has imposed a temporary ban on imports of UK poultry products.
	Thus far, we support the Government and their agencies, the police and local authorities who are working so hard to tackle this outbreak. We extend our sympathy to poultry workers, who naturally voice concerns about their jobs and their welfare. Above all, we need an answer to the question: how exactly did this disease get here?

David Miliband: I very much appreciate the tone of the hon. Member's remarks. His questions are wholly legitimate, and I shall try to go through them carefully.
	The question of reassurance for the public is obviously an important one. We are conscious that messages have to be clear, and we have been trying to work with the retail industry and the poultry sector to give clear and consistent messages. Fortunately, we live in an age when information is widely available through the internet and other sources. I fully endorse the hon. Gentleman's thanks to the long list of public servants who have been involved at all levels, and to people in private industry who have worked very hard with us in this effort.
	One of the hon. Gentleman's main points was about the causes of the outbreak, and he is absolutely right to say that getting to the root of it is a high priority. That is one reason why we have not dismissed any suggestions; we are pursuing all possible avenues of inquiry. It remains most likely that at the root of the problem there is a link with the wild bird population, but that does not mean that we should not pursue other avenues in a serious way, with the greatest of speed, and we are doing so. I will be happy to keep the hon. Gentleman and the House informed as the investigations by officials continue.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether "quickly" meant the following day. It certainly did not; as I said in my statement, as soon as the state veterinary service was informed of the difficulties, restrictions were immediately imposed, and the contingency plan went into action. He asked about the poultry register, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to tell the House, and hopefully through the House people more widely, that although there is a requirement on all those who own more than 50 poultry birds to register on the GB poultry register, it is open to all those with a smaller number of poultry birds to do so. If they do, they can avail themselves of the information that is quickly sent to all those on the register, and that would certainly be excellent. I do not have the figure that the hon. Gentleman asked for on the percentage of poultry owners who are registered, because, almost by definition, if they are not registered, we do not know whether they are there. We are confident that at least 95 per cent. of British poultry is on the register. However, I understand his point, and from my point of view, the more people who register the better.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman may have missed something in my statement; I thought that I had made it absolutely clear that the Tamiflu vaccine was already available for poultry workers. We believe that that is the right approach, when combined with the wearing of protective clothing, which all our experts say is the most important measure, and the first line of defence. I am pleased to say that we are working with the trade unions on that, too. On compensation, I hope that he will understand when I say that our first priority has been to clamp down on the current outbreak, but of course we are keeping all options open in respect of future compensation arrangements.
	On exports, the most important thing that we can do is act in accordance with our plan, which is widely recognised as being of a very high standard. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Japanese example, which I have heard about. I think that I am right in saying that the industry's export value is about £375 million to £377 million a year. The EU content of that is about £280 million to £290 million a year, so our first priority has been to ensure a secure line with the European Commission, and that has been done. Obviously we are working with those in Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts around the world to ensure that the message goes out clearly that we have very high standards, that we take the issue extremely seriously, and that we will stamp out the problem.

Bob Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare for keeping us informed over the weekend; it was greatly appreciated. I join others in thanking the local councils, Suffolk police and the local primary care trust for its work in respect of the emergency planning team over the weekend.
	We know that bird deaths are not uncommon in rearing houses, and it would therefore be impractical immediately to raise a full-scale alert at every bird death, but as we now have this deadly virus in our country—that is, it has appeared here—does the Secretary of State think that we need to establish a threshold, a point at which local vets are immediately required to alert his Department, even if they are not sure that the problem is the virus? Finally, if there are no further outbreaks, within what time scale does my right hon. Friend envisage that the restriction zone, the surveillance zone and the buffer zones will no longer be needed?

David Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his points. It might help the whole House if I gave the figures for the deaths in the shed in question on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, which were given to me in percentage terms just before I came to the House. On Tuesday, the figure was 1 per cent., on Wednesday 3.6 per cent., and on Thursday 16 per cent. It was the leap to 16 per cent. that led the local vet, quite professionally and properly, to alert the state veterinary service. I am nervous of saying that there should be one figure below which everything is fine, and above which we would trigger full battle plans. In this case, the evidence presented to me shows that local officials and vets have acted in an extremely professional way, and that the leap from 3.6 per cent. to 16 per cent. rightly triggered concern.
	My hon. Friend asked about the length of time beyond which we would be able to lift the restrictions. The requirement is 30 days and we will be seeking to achieve that as soon as possible.

Christopher Huhne: My thanks to the Secretary of State for keeping us informed and for an early sight of the statement. A number of allegations have been made that factory farming may have been a contributory cause, based on research in Canada and on some of the findings of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. Will he comment on that?
	Turning to the Government's immediate reaction, will the Secretary of State explain a little more clearly what appears to have been a delay? Reporting by private vets has been mentioned. Has the Department issued guidance that sets out to private vets an indication of when they can be expected to report to the state veterinary service? According to the Minister of State, tests were not performed on Thursday evening. Why? Why did we have to wait until Saturday for the test results, given that presumably every hour is crucial when facing such a highly pathogenic outbreak?
	Looking beyond the immediate response, will the Secretary of State comment on compensation for farmers and confirm that it will be forthcoming in this case under schedule 3 of the Animal Health Act 1981? I note that David Nabarro, head of the UN department co-ordinating the global efforts against bird flu, has warned us to expect more outbreaks in the coming months. What research have the Government undertaken into bird vaccines after the Cellardyke swan case, after which Sir David King, chief scientific officer to the Government said,
	"The disadvantages of using the current vaccines far outweigh the potential benefits."?
	Is that still the Government's judgment?
	Is it not perverse that while the Department's own website argues that this year's emergency budget cuts were in part caused by additional bird flu spending, the impact of the cuts will fall in part on the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which has lost £2.4 million in this financial year, and the SVS, which has lost £3 million? Is that not a short-sighted cut that the Secretary of State should now regret?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman asked about factory farming—his words, not mine. We have no evidence that the occurrence was linked to that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked several questions about delay without realising or pinpointing what delays he was talking about. I thought my statement made it absolutely clear that as soon as the SVS had been notified, the process set out in the contingency plan— it is available to him, to other hon. Members and to members of the public—was set in motion. By 21.00 hours on Friday, preliminary test results revealed that it was the H5 avian flu. It is rather unfair of the hon. Gentleman—not to me, but to the officials who have been working at the Weighbridge laboratory—to suggest that they were somehow dilatory or not on the case. They worked very hard with the samples delivered to them. By Friday morning, there was a further development. By Friday afternoon, we had confirmation of the Asian link. On reflection the hon. Gentleman might want to recognise the hard work of these public officials, rather than attacking them on the basis of limited information, or at least limited judgment.
	On compensation, it arises most obviously for the Bernard Matthews company in the current case. As the hon. Gentleman will know, compensation is available in the case of slaughter of healthy birds. In this case, that is a large majority of them and we are discussing that with the company. I am confident that we will come to an agreement, although both the company and the Department have focused on stamping out the disease as the top priority. It remains the case that our guidance about vaccines has not changed. In respect of the alleged cuts to the state veterinary service, the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.

Ian Gibson: My right hon. Friend makes the point that the most likely explanation for the cause of the outbreak is wild fowl. Is it not just as possible and just as likely that purchasing turkey chicks from Hungary might be an important factor? Has he investigated that to see whether it happens with British industries?

David Miliband: There may have been one aspect of the question from the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that I did not answer, and it is linked—the so-called Hungarian connection. The chicks all came from within this country, so there is no Hungarian connection of that sort. The factory involved in the Hungarian outbreak was not a Bernard Matthews factory.

John Gummer: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is considerable admiration in Suffolk for the work of his Department, for Lee Howells and Suffolk county council's emergency department, and for Wendy Mawer and what has happened with Waveney district council, contrary to the comments from the Liberal Democrats, which are clearly unsuitable, given the hard work that has been done overnight by those people? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the outbreak has been a tremendous problem for a large number of poultry keepers? Can he assure the House that he will be no less generous in his support than the French Government were in a similar circumstance, and that he will also look at the considerable extra costs that will be borne by Suffolk county council and the police, who have behaved extremely well and who are already carrying significant extra costs because of the sad circumstances earlier in the year? Lastly, does he agree that one of the reasons why we can expect many of our exports to continue is the sensible arrangements in the European Union, where our membership is extremely important in this matter?

David Miliband: I feel a strong sense of fellow feeling with the right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Minister of Agriculture—a small but select club. I take seriously his term "considerable admiration" for the hard work of officials, and I will do all in my power to make sure that his understanding and recognition of their work is communicated, because it will be respected and taken seriously. Any British Cabinet Minister must be somewhat wary of committing to French levels of largesse in public compensation. I am happy to debate that with those on the Opposition Front Bench, who have snorted at that prospect. I am encouraged by their new-found interest in seeking examples across the channel. I will look at the French levels, but we have our own practices in that regard. The poultry industry is a proud industry that is not a recipient of Government subsidy, and it is important that the shared responsibilities that are established be taken forward. I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling about the situation of public authorities in Suffolk. We will certainly look at the situation, but as I said to other hon. Members, our focus, and that of all public authorities and private bodies, has been on stamping out the disease.
	Finally, I applaud the right hon. Gentleman's continuing, if too lonely, support for the European Union on the Opposition Benches, and I hope he will win some converts to his cause.

Charlotte Atkins: Can the Secretary of State guarantee that my constituents are put at no risk whatsoever from the transportation of the dead turkeys to Pointon's rendering plant in Cheddleton in Staffordshire, Moorlands? My constituents are concerned because in the past there have been occasions when animal parts and foul-smelling liquid have spilled from Pointon's wagons and been deposited along the highway throughout my constituency and in Staffordshire as a whole. Could that happen in this case?

David Miliband: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, on whether I can guarantee the health and security of her constituency, is yes. She also asked whether there was any chance of liquids seeping out of the lorries, and the answer to that is no. Intensive work has been undertaken in respect of the transfer of these carcases. A test is carried out on the lorry before it enters the Suffolk area. It is then sealed after the carcases have been put inside, and a further test is carried out. The load is then transported to my hon. Friend's constituency with an escort. I can therefore assure her not only that every effort has been made, but that a foolproof system has been established. I think that I am right in saying that, in the past, lorries from other companies might have gone to the rendering plant, but on this occasion, only Pointon's lorries are being used, and the company has been extremely helpful in co-operating with the Government on this issue. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend to set out in detail the way in which we are ensuring that all the lorries are leak-proof and that other risks are eliminated.

Keith Simpson: Last year, there was an outbreak of avian flu in my constituency. May I reinforce the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)? The way in which the Department responded to that outbreak and kept MPs informed was very good indeed. May I also commend the Secretary of State for his comments on the time factor involved in the rise in deaths of chicks and on the way in which the vet reported this to the Department? I have to declare an interest here: Mr. Bernard Matthews is a constituent of mine. The feeling, at least in his company, was that there had been a degree of hysteria about this matter in the media. Finally, given that this is the third outbreak in about two years, does the Secretary of State believe that we are, unfortunately, going to see continuing incidents like this on an increasing scale? If so, what is the Department going to be able to do about it?

David Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I hope that, as a Norfolk MP, he will recognise that we have tried to apply common sense in establishing the restrictions and the other zones in the most sensible way. The hardest question that he asked was about future incidents. I would not want to say that I foresaw rising numbers of incidents, not least because extensive measures have been taken by the Government and by farmers to improve biosecurity, to try to clamp down on that possibility. Equally, there are incidents around the world, so there are risks. It would be wrong for me to come here and say that there will not be any future incidents. However, we are working in an open way with all the interested parties to minimise Britain's exposure, and to maximise the chances that, in the unwelcome event of further incidents, they will be dealt with extremely promptly.

Anthony D Wright: May I thank the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) for keeping me informed of the incidents over the weekend? They are not in my constituency, but part of the restricted zone covers it. Is the Secretary of State comfortable with the fact that the restricted zone covers only 14 sq km? Does he consider that, because of the deadly strain of the virus, it should be extended further?

David Miliband: Perhaps I have been slightly ungenerous in not doing so before, but I am happy to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, who has done an outstanding job on this. I am pleased that he was able to get in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). My own view—and that of the experts, which is more important—is that the restricted zones are the right size, shape and proportion. The publicity surrounding the issue will heighten awareness among all poultry owners and farmers, and that can only be a good thing, because it will reinforce the need for care to be taken at every level of the chain.

Michael Jack: I congratulate DEFRA and all concerned on the professionalism with which they have dealt with this outbreak. Now that we have H5N1 in a large-scale poultry operation, will the Secretary of State discuss with the industry the possibility that it should have a self-imposed movement ban when disease is first discovered, and that such a ban should be maintained until such time as it can be proved that the disease is not H5N1? As I understand it, this outbreak occurred in a closed poultry unit. If that is the case, will the Secretary of State carry out a thorough review of biosecurity measures—once lessons have been learned—given that Bernard Matthews claims to operate to the highest standards in that area?

David Miliband: It is important that when the dust settles, which I hope will happen as soon as possible, we draw whatever lessons there are from the case. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "if" in respect of the closed nature of the premises. That is exactly what we are investigating; obviously, it is in everybody's interest to find out exactly how the incident happened. If there are any lessons, we will certainly draw them.
	To be honest, I cannot remember whether the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has considered the issue. However, we would certainly welcome advice from the right hon. Gentleman and others on any lessons to be drawn.

Paddy Tipping: The issue of compensation and who is responsible for it has already been mentioned. However, the Secretary of State will recall that there has been long-standing discussion about moving from the present situation to an insurance-based system. How far have those discussions gone?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises a good and probing question. It is fair to say that discussions are continuing; that is the line to take on the issue. The Government believe that it is important that the poultry industry operates without subsidy, independently, and takes responsibility. Equally, there are strongly held views about the rights of poultry owners. If an insurance-based system provided a third way, no doubt there would be many adherents to that approach. However, the direct answer to my hon. Friend's question is that discussions are continuing.

Elfyn Llwyd: I commend the action taken by the Secretary of State in banning poultry fairs, pigeon racing and so on throughout the UK. With that in mind, will he please assure the House that he and his officials liaise closely with their opposite numbers in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—and, crucially, with the chief veterinary officers in each country?
	The steps taken so far have been commendable. I hope that the problem has been contained and I wish the Secretary of State and his Department well in combating that awful disease.

David Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and careful words. At the Civil Contingencies Committee or Cobra meeting that I attended this morning, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish officials were beamed in —[Laughter.] They were able to participate through the wonders of new technology and video conferencing. They are following the situation very carefully and I think that I am right in saying that statements are being made by the respective Ministers.
	The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. On a tiny point of detail, the ban covers Great Britain rather than the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, people are thinking about the links. However, as we speak the ban covers Great Britain only.

Robert Flello: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's response to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), given the regular frequency with which blood, other fluids and parts of carcases are spilt along roads in my constituency on the way to Pointon's.
	I am told that, this morning, a vehicle travelling to Pointon's had blood and other fluids spilling from it, although it was not necessarily one of those transporting the turkey carcases. Will my right hon. Friend give further reassurance that when those vehicles are escorted, the escort vehicles travel behind the lorries, making sure that nothing at all is spilt from them? Will he further reassure me that should such a thing happen, any transportation will immediately cease until an investigation is carried out?

David Miliband: I am concerned by what my hon. Friend has reported. He did qualify the incident strongly by saying that it may not have been associated with the case that we are discussing. Perhaps officials can follow the issue up with him promptly. I know of a case in which a tarpaulin or cover was not on a lorry, but that was because it was transporting disused machinery, not animals.
	I can say that rigorous systems are in place for the lorries that enter the Suffolk area and before they leave it. I can also assure my hon. Friend that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs thinks that cars need to follow the lorries rather than preceding them if they are to see anything untoward. I shall certainly send him a copy of the letter that I am writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). Perhaps officials can follow up the case with him because although the TV footage may seem alarming, it is sometimes of previous cases and it is important that people do not leap to the wrong conclusions. All my information is that that is being taken seriously and addressed rigorously.

Douglas Hogg: As one of the dwindling band of former Ministers of Agriculture, I draw on the experiences of BSE and put the following to the Secretary of State. First, one has to recognise that the public are often uncertain about statements made by Ministers, and whenever possible one should use experts to reassure the public. Secondly, and differently, it is important to keep close to the European Union—the Commissioner, the relevant Ministers in the Council and the officials. If we do not and are not able to provide reassurance, they may well do things that go beyond that which we think desirable or justified.

David Miliband: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks from bitter experience. I agree that experts who talk with the authority that comes from their profession are invaluable. The deputy chief officer who has appeared over the weekend, Fred Landeg, has done an outstanding job in being very clear with the public and in conveying quiet authority. Certainly we remain close to our European Commission colleagues. The European Union has held either a press briefing or a press conference today, which it would do as a matter of routine, in the course of which it commended the work that we are doing.

Russell Brown: My right hon. Friend mentioned TV footage. It has been televised today that some farms within restricted areas do not appear to have taken their fowl indoors. Will he assure me and the House that if anyone is not complying with the regulations laid down, they will be dealt with immediately?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The answer is simple: it is illegal not to respond to the requirements laid down; it is also deeply irresponsible if that is happening. It is vital that a strong message goes out from all of us that the restrictions have been put in place for good reason and that they apply not just to 90 or 95 per cent. of poultry owners, but to all of them. It is in all our interests that they are followed rigorously and carefully.

Roger Williams: The Secretary of State has not been exactly clear about whether the Government will consider market assistance if the price of poultry meat plummets, as it has done on other occasions. During the last incident, the UK was the only member state that did not provide such support. Will he give us an assurance that the financial consequences of the Fontainebleau agreement will not deter him from drawing down such assistance, which would leave our poultry industry the most disadvantaged in Europe?

David Miliband: I hope I can be clearer: it is not the policy of the UK Government to second-guess the commercial prices that are found on the market. It is also the case that this country—not the Government or the House of Commons, but the people—has a strong record of looking carefully at the evidence, and when sales in other countries have plummeted in previous episodes, they have not plummeted here. It is important that a clear and sober message goes out from the House about the facts of the case.

Mary Creagh: Will the Secretary of State reassure us that all the birds involved in the outbreak were swiftly and humanely killed? Have he and his officials reviewed both the number and the location of the containerised gassing units used to control the outbreaks to ensure that we deal with birds humanely and quickly in any future outbreak?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. In this case we were able to use adjoining facilities, which worked very well. As I said in my statement, we are on track for the culling to be completed today, which by historic and comparative standards is extremely quick work. I commend all those involved for their speediness, and if there are lessons to be learnt we will certainly learn them.

Angela Browning: The largest private sector employer in my constituency is a poultry processor. The constituency also contains many small units of growers who serve that employer, as well as a number of other smaller businesses. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that if an outbreak occurred in Devon, where most poultry is reared outdoors for the organic market, and if all those birds had to be brought indoors, there would be enough flexibility in the planning system for temporary housing to allow the welfare of the birds to be sustained?

David Miliband: That is an important question, to which the short answer is yes. We are aware that common sense and practicality must enter into the equation, and we agree with those in the organic movement that it is important to provide appropriate protection for them as well as for others. I shall be happy to write to the hon. Lady with more details, but, as I have said, practicality enters into this, and I think we have the right systems in place.

David Curry: Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that as yet we have absolutely no certainty about the origin of swine fever or, for that matter, foot and mouth disease? Although we want to discover the origin of this disease, there is no guarantee that we will do so. Will the Secretary of State also bear in mind that on every single occasion on which the disease has struck in Europe, it has been contained by rapid, effective and properly publicised action? While we should prepare for the worst, there is every expectation that following the action that has been taken, we can contain the outbreak on that site.

David Miliband: I believe the right hon. Gentleman is the fourth former Conservative Agriculture Minister to give me the benefit of his experience. I do not know the collective noun for a group of former Conservative Agriculture Ministers. A flock, perhaps.

James Paice: A flock culled in 1997.

David Miliband: I am happy to be reminded of that, but it is important to add that they were culled in a very humane way.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has raised an important point. I hope that he will have a word with the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who asked whether it was reasonable to say that we might not find an answer. The right hon. Gentleman's example of swine fever suggests that that may be the case. Suffice it to say that while we are determined to do all in our power to discover the origins of the disease because it is very important for us to do so, the right hon. Gentleman's cautionary words have been taken to heart.

Richard Bacon: Let me declare for the record that I am not a former Conservative Agriculture Minister.

Barry Gardiner: A future one, perhaps.

Richard Bacon: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support.
	The news from the National Farmers Union over the weekend, following a survey of supermarkets, was that sales had not been affected. That is testament to the measured and open way in which DEFRA has handled the outbreak. My own feedback from farmers and farmers' groups has been full of praise for the way in which it has been handled by DEFRA and the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare. Does the Secretary of State agree that the only danger is that we shall talk ourselves into a crisis when one is not warranted?

David Miliband: I should like to enjoy the confidence in and praise for DEFRA's work that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed for as long as possible, but I do not wish to tempt fate.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the British public are taking a long, hard, sober look at the situation and drawing sensible conclusions. It is also important that the House is sending a relatively united message, and I commend the hon. Gentleman and other Members of Parliament for that. I believe that one or two Members have visited the site—I know that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has done so—and have seen the co-ordinated work that is being done locally.
	The best thing that we can do for public confidence is obviously to stamp out the disease, and that is what we are determined to do.

Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State is aware that I represent a very large number of Bernard Matthews staff and that many of my constituents work in other poultry-producing farms. I was pleased to hear what he said about the inoculation of poultry workers throughout East Anglia. Further to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), does he share my concern about those free range producers who are now facing lockdown? Does he agree that their status as organic free range producers should not suffer any consequences as a result of events beyond their control?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman has raised a detailed but important point, which I am glad he has put on the record, although for reasons I will explain I may need to correct it. He raised the question of organic status, which is critical for organic farmers. There is no question but that that needs to be protected. My recollection is that there is three months' worth of protection of that organic status. That is important in this case. I hope that that offers some reassurance to organic farmers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	It may help if I reiterate one point. While it is tempting to leap to the language of vaccination and inoculation, the best protection against the transfer of avian influenza is protective clothing. All the advice that I have had from the vets and scientists who attended the Cobra meeting this morning and the meeting in my room this afternoon is that that is the first line of defence, and an effective line of defence, too.

Owen Paterson: Is a clade analysis of this particular virus being undertaken? If so, will the Secretary of State publish the results?

David Miliband: I did not catch what the hon. Gentleman said, so either he can write to me or perhaps Mr. Speaker will call him again.

Owen Paterson: A clade is a particular strain of the virus. Is an analysis of the clade being undertaken?

David Miliband: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman—I am completely stumped by the googly that he has bowled me. I have not noticed that in any of the voluminous briefing that has been sent to me. The watching dozens in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be petrified at the prospect that he has found something out that I have not. I will find out and write to him. Perhaps it will be of interest to the whole House if I place a copy of my answer in the Library, so that we can all deepen our understanding of the matter.

Bob Spink: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that Tamiflu and general antivirals will be of little use if this virus mutates to cross species. What action are the Government taking to increase the capacity for the development and production of specific vaccines in order to protect human health if there is a cross-species mutation?

David Miliband: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health addressed that matter yesterday and on previous occasions. All the scientific advice is that it is very difficult to develop a specific vaccine until the disease has started, so we are in a chicken and egg situation.

Andrew Lansley: H5N1.

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman shouts out "H5N1." The danger of the pandemic involves a mutation between a human form of flu and the H5N1. It is that mutation that is difficult.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the reassurance that he has given the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) and for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). The Secretary of State may be aware that the trucks that are being used for delivery have tarpaulin covers. What assurance can he give us that those tarpaulin covers are secure? In high winds, which thankfully we do not have today, tarpaulin covers become loose. Why cannot we have vehicles that are fully covered in metal to ensure that the sort of waste that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands mentioned does not cause problems in this and other instances?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman conjures up an image of flapping tarpaulins as lorries trek down the motorway or even down the A34. I can assure him that these covers are tightly and strictly tied down at several points along the length of the lorry—I am happy to send him a diagram, if that will help, detailing the type of knot that is used. Clearly, it is strongly in our interest to use the highest-quality lorries. We are advised that the lorries that are being used are fit for purpose and are appropriate for that function. They do their job admirably, so I hope that I have provided further reassurance for the hon. Gentleman.

Shailesh Vara: To pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), the Secretary of State mentioned that the Tamiflu vaccination for human influenza has been offered to everyone involved. He is nodding his head, but I urge him to look at the script of the statement that was given to hon. Members. I have a copy of a reply from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who said:
	"We have purchased 3.3 million doses of H5N1 vaccine which may be used to vaccinate front-line healthcare workers."—[ Official Report, 22 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 1592W.]
	May I inquire why, if a vaccine does exist, it has not been given to those who are involved in this tragic incident?

David Miliband: There are three things to say in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, the seasonal flu vaccine has been offered to the workers in this case. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman described Tamiflu as a vaccination, but that is not technically correct.  [ Interruption. ] Just a sec—what I said in my statement was that it was an antiviral. He will find that it is correct to say that it is an antiviral treatment. Thirdly, there is the issue to which he referred. Our scientific and other advice is that protective clothing is the first line of defence, but it is right to offer the antiviral, too. We have not judged it necessary to utilise the other stocks that are available, because they are judged not to be necessary.

Orders of the Day

UK Borders Bill

[Relevant documents: the Fifth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2005-06, on Immigration Control (HC 775), and the Government's reply thereto (Cm 6910).]
	 Order for Second Reading read.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Last summer, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched the most radical shake-up ever of our immigration system. He was clear, open, honest and frank about the system's strengths and weaknesses and how he believed it needed to change. Since last July, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), and I have travelled the length and breadth of the UK discussing with front-line staff, as well as local business communities and public services, the way in which they think things should change in the years to come. As a result, over the next few months, we will introduce five important reforms that we will announce shortly.
	First, we will introduce a new strategy to bring together government to tackle illegal immigration in the round, as recommended last year by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and the Home Affairs Committee. Secondly, we will provide new resources to help double the budget for enforcement and for the removal of individuals who break our immigration laws. Thirdly, we will introduce new technology to count everybody in and out of Britain. Fourthly, we will establish stronger international partnerships because, in an era of global migration, it has become impossible for nation states to manage the issue on their own. Fifthly, the Bill will provide new powers for the border and immigration agency, which will go live in shadow form on 1 April this year.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is not going to introduce something advocated by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members—a single, integrated border force, encompassing police functions as well as the functions discharged by the immigration and nationality directorate. Can he explain why he rejected that option and whether it remains under consideration for introduction?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks and I hope that we will debate the matter he mentions both this afternoon and in Committee. I kept an open mind about proposals on it. I know that some of the plans from all parts of the House have been developed at the ideas stage but not necessarily at the detail stage. I am a keen reader of many Conservative publications, such as those of their national and international policy strategy group, and I noticed that the Conservatives recently said that they were aiming to make more detailed proposals, but at some point in the future. Although this matter has been talked about for many years on the Opposition Benches, it appears that details are still to emerge.
	I addressed the matter with an open mind, but at a time when the terrorist threat to the country is so severe, I cannot justify a wholesale reorganisation—and disruption—of those agencies that are currently charged with securing our border. I recently visited the United States of America, which has embarked on such a reorganisation. Five years later, it is still not complete. Of course, when border agencies are reorganised, that simply creates another set of touch-points with agencies in-country. I think that one of the arguments that will emerge over the coming months is that, in our modern era of global migration and mass movement, it is difficult to separate the work of organisations that operate at the border from that of organisations that are responsible for in-country enforcement—or, indeed, from that of agencies such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which are responsible for helping secure our borders overseas.
	The Bill gives us many of the measures that the proposals that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) recommends would deliver, but without the disorganisation—without the creation of the prospect of disorder at the border.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Liam Byrne: I will give way once I have made more progress.
	The Bill should not be dismissed as another immigration Bill. It is much more ambitious than that. It is part of an ambitious plan of reform that has been co-authored by many immigration and nationality directorate front-line staff. I do not believe—and nor do our officers and other staff—that we can secure our borders in this world of global migration without three measures: first, greater powers for front-line officers to help them secure the border; secondly, a concerted attack on organised crime, which might account for as much as three quarters of illegal entry into Britain; and, thirdly, a much more robust approach not only to detecting and removing those who are in the country illegally, but to attacking the causes of illegal immigration, which are the exploitation of vulnerable illegal labour by racketeers.

Andrew MacKinlay: I wanted to interrupt the Minister a moment ago when he was talking about the local border authorities and the immigration authorities, which he said dealt with matters internally—I forget the precise term that he used. I sent to him last week an example of the lack of such joined-up administration. Some people who were illegally coming into the country were stopped by the Port of Tilbury police. The immigration officials at the port of Tilbury said that it was a matter for Stansted, and when Stansted was communicated with by my Port of Tilbury police, it said, "Let them go." That scenario powerfully demonstrates the need for one joined-up co-ordinated border police force. Can the Minister explain what happened in that scenario? I shall refer to it later, if I catch the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the matter.

Liam Byrne: I recently wrote back to my hon. Friend and I hope that he received that letter. I do not think that there is any excuse for the incident. However, the kind of problem that it presents would not have been remedied by the creation of a single border force. It is the kind of problem that would have been remedied by existing organisations having the necessary powers to do their job and by them benefiting from the increased resources that we propose.

Neil Gerrard: One theme that runs through the Bill is the giving of a wide range of increased powers to immigration officers. We are giving them more and more powers that are quasi-police powers, yet there are not the same sort of remedies for complaints against, and supervision of, immigration officers as there are for police officers. Should that not be considered in the Bill so that it is understood what someone can do if an immigration officer uses the new powers, because if a police officer were using them there would be a clear route for complaint and supervision?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I shall come to precisely some of the protections that it is important to put in place in the next few months and in the years to come. However, there is a broader point that I hope he will welcome. If the IND is to become a stronger agency, it must become more open and accountable not only to this place but to the public. We propose to change the structure and pattern of regulation and inspection that the IND currently enjoys because I do not believe that 11 different regulators and inspectors are big enough and strong enough on their own to hold it to account.

Tony Wright: I like very much what the Bill says about increased powers of deportation, but 14 per cent. of the prison population is made up of foreign nationals from 170 different countries. It looks as though we are jailers to the world. As the Minister knows, there is great fear about the possible influx of criminal gangs from eastern Europe because of the enlargement of the European Union. Will he assure us that the free movement of labour in the EU does not mean the free movement of criminal labour?

Liam Byrne: It is extremely important that, as part of any enlargement, there is greater co-operation between the police and frontier forces of accession states, and I am glad to say that we have enjoyed tremendous co-operation from our colleagues in new member states. We have benefited from their expertise on our front line—our primary and secondary lines—in the UK, and later, I shall talk about some of the measures that we will put in place to expedite the cases of foreign national prisoners in our jails who actually should be at home.

John Redwood: How many seaports and airports currently have seven-day-a-week, 24-hour cover—surveillance and personnel in attendance—and how many will need that cover to get control of our borders?

Liam Byrne: I recently provided a parliamentary answer on that matter, and I will happily dig out the  Hansard reference for the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, in an island nation, there will always be ports that do not warrant 24-hour, seven-day-a-week cover. At the last election, I remember listening on the radio to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who is not in his place, as John Humphrys was interrogating him remorselessly on the plans for precisely how a ring of steel might operate. The conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman reached was, I think, the same as mine: that patrols of entry and of exit will have to be conducted on an intelligence basis, to a degree. Systems such as e-borders, which, through access to advanced passenger information, will assist us in counting people in and out, will help, but there will not be much of a substitute in the near future for intelligence-led controls.

John Denham: As my hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, under successive Chairmen, has supported the broad principle of a border force. He has set out the reasons why he does not want to do that now, but would it not be sensible to use the Bill at least to align the powers of immigration and customs officers, so that our front-line staff at the borders have the same sets of powers and can be used interchangeably on different operations? Short of a border force, that would allow much more flexible use of our vital front-line staff.

Liam Byrne: It is possible, under the existing measures in the border management programme, to undertake a degree of alignment in operational capability, but the measures that we propose are a start towards introducing such alignment. Following the work that we did with our partners and front-line staff, those were the powers that they believed to be important.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Liam Byrne: I shall make more progress before I give way again.
	In clauses 1 to 4, we seek to provide additional powers to front-line immigration officers at border control, in order that they can do their job. At the border, for the first time, we propose that immigration officers should have the power to detain individuals who are the subject of an arrest warrant or who may be liable to arrest by a police constable. The Bill recognises that the role of the immigration officer is changing and is increasingly important in the wider battle for security.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) asked about some of the measures on oversight that will become important in the months to come. We will need to modernise some of the guidance that is provided for immigration officers, at present set out in chapters 31 and 38 of their instructions. We will also have to develop statutory rules for short-term holding facilities, including for holding rooms. All immigration detention facilities are subject to independent oversight by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. In addition, we have asked independent monitoring boards to set up mechanisms so that they may provide oversight too.
	Secondly, the Bill provides new powers to tackle the modern day slave trade—the people trafficking and human smuggling that may have cost up to 2,000 lives en route to Europe in the last decade alone. Through this Bill, foreign nationals helping people to enter the UK illegally, for whatever reason, will no longer be able to hide behind the fact that they perpetrated their crime abroad. They now stand to be arrested should they come to the UK or to be extradited from abroad to face prosecution here.
	We are also strengthening our prosecution powers to make it clear that facilitators or traffickers who are active in the secure areas of our ports can be arrested—for example, those who dispose of documents after arrival. The issue of smuggling and trafficking is fundamental to the future of immigration control and I am glad that, over the past few months, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have made that argument. It is a field of work that demands international solutions. In the IND review that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched last July, we committed to working jointly with European and international partners to tackle the challenges of global migration, including cross-border criminality. The Bill is, therefore, important in helping us to deliver some of those commitments because facilitation is often carried out by those involved in organised crime, including networks involved in smuggling other items, such as drugs, weapons or worse.

Margaret Moran: I welcome the provisions in the Bill to tackle those people who seek to make profit out of human misery or people trafficking. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are major concerns—as I learned in Ukraine when I visited that country recently—that those who are trafficked are often given relatively little support. They can return to their countries of origin only to fall into the hands of a different set of traffickers. Does his Department propose any measures that will prevent that cycle of repeat abuse?

Liam Byrne: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done in this area and the consistent way in which she has underlined this issue to Ministers. The Bill is but a first step to help us ensure that we have the powers to tackle the problem. Other measures are part of our reform programme, whether that is the work that we are undertaking on the convention, which my hon. Friend will know well; the work we are doing through the European Union; or the work we are doing with the Department for International Development to ensure that we are fully exploring the opportunity to develop facilities in foreign countries to stop the problem at the root.

John Gummer: The Minister will understand that, in Felixstowe, which is Britain's largest port, various aspects of the border protection provision used to work well together. However, the actions of the Government have removed the ability to work locally and everything has to go through a central point, so it takes longer to do any of the work. Can the Minister guarantee to look at the issue again to make things more efficient?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is something that I would be anxious to support, because the direction of reform that we seek to make in the IND and the border and immigration agency is not centralisation, but devolution. That is why we will produce proposals to regionalise the IND in the months to come. The IND needs a much stronger connection with the communities that it serves. It simply is not possible to achieve joint working locally without a much stronger connection to local communities.

Keith Vaz: Nobody doubts the commitment of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to trying to sort out the mess that is the IND, but my hon. Friend has just talked about a fundamental review and decentralising the IND. How can he do that when there will be a cut in his budget? He will have to give away some of his resources for the Prison Service to be managed. We want a more effective system, and obviously the Government feel that we should have more legislation, but we actually need the implementation to be more efficient. How can he do it without the money?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention— [ Laughter. ] My right hon. Friend knows that I will take advice from him any day of the week at any time of the day or night and I will always seek to profit from it. As he knows, we are always looking for more money in our bit of the Department, which is precisely why I will shortly produce proposals to double the budget for enforcement and removal.

Andrew MacKinlay: It will no doubt have occurred to my hon. Friend that the Government's regions often follow riparian boundaries; for instance, the south-eastern region includes Gravesend, Tilbury is in the eastern region, and London is next door to my constituency. Will we have a situation in which somebody in Gravesend says, "I can't come over because it's another region"? Will a person in Rainham be unable to go down to Purfleet? The Minister's proposal fills me with horror. While he is at it, can he deal with the West Lothian question? Why do clauses 1 to 4 exclude Scotland? Surely the issue is not devolved.

Liam Byrne: Let me deal with my hon. Friend's second question first. The advice of the Attorney-General and of Scottish advocates is that the powers that we propose relate to devolved matters and would therefore require a Sewel motion. As there are only seven international ports in Scotland, compared with 44 in England, Scottish Executive colleagues have proposed an operational solution to the problem, which they have talked through with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and with which I am satisfied.
	On my hon. Friend's first point, we obviously have to work with existing ports as they are. We will not allow arbitrary lines on a map to divert us from our intention of seeking to secure the border. We will work closely with operators when we devise solutions.
	The third set of provisions, clauses 20 to 27, provides us with a range of measures to shut down the exploitation of illegal migrant labour. We cannot secure our borders unless we take that on. The Bill therefore builds on the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to make it more difficult to employ people illegally and to increase the penalties for doing so. The Bill extends existing powers of search and arrest to the new offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker. It introduces new powers for immigration officers to seize cash suspected of being gained during the commission of an offence under immigration law. We ask, too, for the power to sell assets once we have seized them as part of a criminal investigation, following the forfeiture of such property to the Secretary of State by the courts.
	As we toughen the regime for businesses that break the rules, we must make it easier for employers to double-check who is who and who has the right to work. At present, that is too complicated. Up to 60 different documents could be proffered as evidence of entitlement to be in this country and to work, so clauses 5 to 15 would change that situation by phasing out insecure 20th-century forms of identification and phasing in a single biometric identity card for foreign nationals. The Bill therefore introduces powers to make regulations requiring those subject to immigration control to apply for a biometric immigration document. We will start to issue those documents in 2008 and roll them out incrementally thereafter.
	As is right and proper, we will return to the House each time that we wish to extend the power to a new category of third-country national.

Edward Garnier: Can the Minister tell us—if he would care to listen—whether this part of the Bill adds to, subtracts from or merely replicates what is already in the Identity Cards Act 2006?

Liam Byrne: I hope that we will have that debate at length in Committee, but these clauses and powers will add to the provisions already in law.

Fiona Mactaggart: Often the people who end up with the most complicated problems are those whose status is not absolutely clear and where the Home Office takes a very, very long time to decide their status. Can the Minister assure us about the time that decisions to issue such documents and to clarify people's status will take in future?

Liam Byrne: That is an extremely important point, which has been put to me by right hon. and hon. Members over the past few weeks, and I will talk about it in a moment. Suffice it to say that, because of the issues that my hon. Friend alludes to, we will not seek to introduce overnight the cards for the estimated 3.9 million third-country nationals who are in Britain today. In fact, we will seek to phase them in over a number of years, beginning from 2008. However, such a document allows us to phase out many of the insecure documents in circulation, giving employers and benefit providers the benefit of being able to know whether the person presenting themselves is who they say they are and has the right to work.
	A further point that has been made to me over the past few weeks is whether there is any possibility of the police being able to stop someone in the street and demand to see their biometric immigration document. That is not the case. Clause 5(1) limits the powers to take biometric samples and to make checks for immigration purposes and procedures. Regulations will establish the grounds for verification, but there is no intention to give the police the power to stop and search someone who they believe is a foreign national.
	I understand that, under the stop-and-search rules, officers are currently constrained to needing reasonable suspicion that someone is about to perpetrate a serious act of violence or is conveying stolen or prohibited articles, but that must be based on current and accurate intelligence. Suspecting someone of just being a foreign national and stopping them to ask for their documents is subjective and therefore an arbitrary use of power, which is subject to certain remedies.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister made the point that the cards will be used in certain circumstances. Of course, the briefing notes and the research document suggest that the cards will be used in relation to nationality or immigration issues, but that could involve employment, access to benefits, health care, education, following arrest and on imprisonment. There are a large number of occasions when a biometric card would be checked. Is that not the case?

Liam Byrne: Yes, but there is a requirement to check certain documents already, so the only change is that we are making it possible to check a secure document, rather than a insecure one.

Frank Field: Given that the basis on which people gain entitlement to welfare is changing and that it is crucial if the host population is to continue to support welfare that they believe that it is not being misused, will the ID card be used also as an entitlement card to gain access to both health care and social security?

Liam Byrne: That is the foundation that the Bill will put into place. Obviously, the rules that govern the way that services are accessed are set out in different kinds of regulations and laws, which different parts of the Government have in place, but there are a number of services that require public servants to check whether someone has an entitlement to them—good examples are the issuing of a national insurance number, secondary health care and certain local authority services provided under other immigration laws—so we are seeking to put in place the power for both employers and public services to validate and verify whether the document belongs to the person who presents it and whether it is current and in force. The Bill provides an important platform, but it does not provide everything. The regulations and rules for other public services will need to be modernised as the biometric immigration document becomes more widespread.

Andrew Love: I apologise to my hon. Friend for arriving after he started to speak. Some concern has been expressed to me about whether the provisions will be extended to children under the age of 16. Will he tell the House his intentions in that regard? Under the Identity Cards Act 2006, those aged 16 and under are not covered.

Liam Byrne: There are no plans to seek such an extension. The important point that I should underline is that, where we seek to extend biometric immigration documents to different groups of foreign nationals, we will come back to the House to seek authorisation to do so.

Stewart Jackson: I am listening carefully to the Minister's comments on biometric documents. If the raison d'être of the clauses is the curtailing of illegal working, why have the Government hitherto not used the detailed provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to tackle that issue?

Liam Byrne: I welcome that point. It is good to hear an argument in support of that from the Opposition, because they refused to support those clauses—

Stewart Jackson: The 1996 Act.

Liam Byrne: Sorry; I thought that the hon. Gentleman said 2006. If the question is about the 1996 Act— [ Interruption. ] Absolutely, that is a different matter. If the question is about the 1996 Act, the answer is simple: it is clumsy and difficult to operate. That is precisely why a civil penalty regime had to be proposed in its place. The hon. Gentleman will know that late last year I accelerated the timetable for introducing those penalties from 2008 to 2007, because—I underline this point—we need to tackle illegal working in a serious way and to tackle the exploitation of vulnerable people who are here illegally. That is why the civil penalty regime and the sanctions in the Bill are important. It is also why we must make it easier for businesses to check who is who and whether they have the entitlement to work.

Frank Field: I intervene again only because I am anxious that those who want the Government's policy to be as robust as possible in the House and the country express those views. I want to go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) about whether the measures will be rolled out for those under 16. If, in the end, the document is going to be an entitlement card that will register a person's rights to benefits and services—and that will counter fraud—surely there is a case for the Government moving, at some stage, to the issuing of the card when people register births, and thereby gain entitlement to child benefit.

Liam Byrne: My commitment to my right hon. Friend is to continue to listen to those arguments. If he will forgive me, we will take things one stage at a time. From 2008, we will introduce biometric visas for everybody who seeks to come to the country to work or study, or to stay for longer than six months. The Bill is intended to ensure that the 3.9 million third-country nationals who are already here are put on the same kind of footing. But, of course, we will listen to arguments about its further extension.

John Denham: The introduction of compulsory biometric ID cards for people from outside the European economic area and the EU will begin in 2008. The Minister's programme will overlap with the development of voluntary ID cards for UK citizens. I am not quite clear what time scale he is now putting forward for the introduction of voluntary ID cards and how that fits in with the compulsory programme for foreign nationals that he is talking about. I wonder whether he could set out the assumptions that he is making.

Liam Byrne: I am happy to provide that clarification for my right hon. Friend. We will introduce biometric immigration documents and ID cards for foreign nationals in 2008. We will then introduce voluntary ID cards for British citizens in 2009. We will, of course, seek to designate biometric immigration documents once the national identity register comes online.
	The next set of important clauses are those that strengthen our hand in detecting and removing those who are here illegally. Clauses 36 to 38 provide a new statutory gateway for information sharing between Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, its prosecutions office and the IND. That power consolidates and builds on existing gateways and allows us, with improved information sharing, to work much more closely together, to help us tackle illegal working, to help us check the information in applications for leave, and to help us detect those who may be defrauding the asylum support system.
	Deportation, however, once somebody is detained, must be faster than it is today, especially for those who abuse this country's hospitality and breach our laws. The Home Secretary has consistently made it clear that public protection is his No. 1 priority, and this Bill therefore takes forward commitments to ensure the mandatory deportation of foreign national criminals in cases of serious offences.

Mark Francois: rose—

Roger Gale: rose—

Liam Byrne: I will make a little more progress, then I will be happy to give way.
	Significant work has already taken place to improve the processes within the IND for dealing with foreign national criminals. The Bill takes those measures forward in one significant way, by providing a statutory framework for triggering mandatory removal. With the Bill, subject to certain exceptions, a non-EEA foreign national who commits a serious offence as set out in an order made under section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and receives a custodial sentence will automatically be presumed to be subject to deportation, unless that would breach our international obligations. The same applies where a sentence of 12 months or longer is imposed for any other offence. I give way to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).

Roger Gale: The Minister will appreciate that this matter is of particular importance to Kent, as a front-line county. It was said earlier that 14 per cent. of the population of our prisons come from overseas. Clause 28 exempts anybody subject to a prison sentence of less than 12 months. Why? Why, in any event, are these people not deported immediately on conviction? I do not think that my constituents will begin to understand the Government's methods.

Liam Byrne: There is a balance to be struck. We have sought to approach the question in four ways in the Bill. We are ensuring that these procedures apply, first, to anyone who commits an offence that is listed in an order made under section 72 of the 2002 Act, and, secondly, to anybody who commits an offence that results in a 12-month sentence. The House needs to remember that there are then two further provisions available under the Immigration Act 1971 which are not being removed and which remain extant. First, a court may make a recommendation, and secondly, the Home Secretary may remove somebody he deems non-conducive to the public good. I give way to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois).

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way yet again. Bullwood Hall prison in my constituency is now used to detain foreign national prisoners awaiting deportation, but many of those people have been held beyond the expiration of their original sentence because of severe bureaucratic delays in processing the deportation paperwork. Will the Minister agree to review that process, not just the provisions in the Bill but the day-to-day working between his staff in the IND and their colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who liaise with the receiving Governments, as it were? There is a bottleneck in the system, and it has to be cleared if we are to deport these people more swiftly, which is what everybody wants, including in some cases the internees themselves.

Liam Byrne: We are holding these people because the Home Secretary said that we would. If there are particular bottlenecks that the hon. Gentleman wants to bring to my attention, I will of course look at them in detail. Let me tell him, however, the cause of one of those bottlenecks. It is the current provision for a foreign national prisoner to appeal against the deportation order once it has been served. About 72 per cent. of foreign national prisoners who are served with a deportation order go on to exercise their right to appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal—a process that is bureaucratic and cumbersome.
	One of the virtues of the Bill, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will support, is that the appeal must be heard from overseas. Where there are objections on human rights grounds, where someone challenges the Home Secretary's determination that they are not a British national, or where someone challenges the fact that they have been given a 12-month sentence, we will now be able to certify those claims as clearly unfounded, so that we maximise the number of appeals that are heard not in this country but abroad.

David Davies: I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been generous. As there is a 12-month limit, will he explain why, under clause 3 on enforcement, somebody who assaults an immigration officer is
	"liable on summary conviction to...imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks"?
	Does that not mean that people who are questioned or detained by designated immigration officers will have a perfectly good reason to belt them around a bit, knowing that they will not even face deportation if convicted for doing so?

Liam Byrne: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I refer him back to my earlier remarks. There are four ways in which the automatic deportation provisions may be triggered. The first is by a section 72 offence; the second is by a 12-month sentence; the third is by a court recommendation; and the fourth is by behaviour that the Home Secretary deems non-conducive. There are a number of ways in which a criminal who is a foreign national may become subject to the automatic deportation provisions proposed in the clause.

Stewart Jackson: Does the Minister concede that a systemic failure has been built into the Bill, because in respect of the operation of the deportation system the ramifications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights have not been properly examined?

Liam Byrne: I know that the Opposition voted against the Human Rights Act in 1998, and they went into the last election proposing that the refugee convention be renegotiated, although I understand from my close reading of the  Daily Express that the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) now proposes that the Opposition support the refugee convention.
	Of course, the issues that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) mentions would all need to be taken into account. If it is of any comfort to him, I looked at the ethnic minority breakdown of people in our jails, which was provided in  Hansard in answer, I think, to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I also looked at the figures for countries that are frequently deemed "hard to remove to", and five out of six foreign nationals in prison are not from those countries. There are eight nations that could be classed as "hard to remove to", but we removed about 1,500 failed asylum seekers to those countries in 2005 alone—a number not dissimilar to the number of people in our jails who are from those countries.

Ian Davidson: Will the Minister clarify what happens when someone appeals against deportation from the country to which they have been deported? Will they receive legal aid, funded by the British taxpayer?

Liam Byrne: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to write a detailed answer to him, which I will place in the Library, so that other right hon. and hon. Members have access to it.

Julie Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?

Liam Byrne: I must make progress. We propose to use other legislation to give effect to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's commitment to deny leave altogether to terrorists and the most serious criminals whom we cannot remove, but in the Bill we ask for powers to impose reporting and residency restrictions. We intend to use those powers for categories of people with whom we are particularly keen to stay in close contact, such as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, so that as they become removable, we can seek to remove them.
	There is a range of smaller, more technical issues raised by the Bill, and I hope that we will have a longer debate on them when the Bill is in Committee, but one issue that I want to underline is the proposal to eliminate the presentation of new evidence at appeal when we introduce the points system, which I know is supported by many parties. Measures to provide for a single inspector are not in the Bill. We are currently consulting on those proposals and if there is time and the consultation is complete, we will seek to bring them forward later.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am still troubled by clauses 1 to 4. Will my hon. Friend authorise his officials to place in the Library this afternoon the advice to which he referred? He said that there were only seven ports in Scotland, but we would all agree that they are pretty major ones. Why do we need clauses 1 to 4 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not for Scotland? If he had said that the Scottish Parliament was going to introduce such a measure, I could understand it, but he did not say that. I want to see the advice this afternoon. Can it be put in the Library?

Liam Byrne: I will happily furnish advice from my officials and from colleagues north of the border.
	I conclude with one note of warning. Over the next 14 years, the labour market in the developing world will increase by 1 billion people. We know from the International Labour Organisation that somebody in a low-income country can increase their income fivefold by moving to a high-income country. Unless we take action today, the pressure on our borders will grow. The changes that we propose are vital to render our immigration system fit for the future. The Bill is the foundation stone of those changes and I commend it to the House.

Damian Green: The Minister will realise from the tone of the interventions—not so much from the Benches behind me, but from those behind him—the enormous degree of scepticism with which the Bill is being greeted by the House. He cannot be surprised.
	We should put the Bill in its proper perspective. I will start with the legislative perspective. This is the sixth immigration Bill that the Government have introduced in less than ten years, and these Bills are coming along faster and faster. Last year we had an immigration Bill; this year we have an immigration Bill; I understand that, next year, the Home Office hopes for an immigration consolidation Bill. If passing laws made our borders more secure, we would have the safest and most efficient immigration system in the world. Instead we have an embarrassing shambles.
	The Home Secretary was of course right to describe the system as "not fit for purpose" in that notorious phrase that perfectly encapsulates the new Labour Home Office; a phrase that was correct when he said it and is even more correct today, when he has had nearly a year to make things better.
	The problem, as illustrated by the Bill, is that for this Government, passing a new law is displacement activity. They do it because it is easier than getting to grips with the real problems. They do it because it gives Ministers a sense of usefulness, purpose and forward momentum—a sense that they might well lose if they stopped to contemplate the reality of Britain's immigration and asylum system today.
	Let us look at the reality. The second perspective in which the Bill needs to be seen is the impact of all the Bills passed by the Government on the real world. Let us consider the current efficiency of the Home Office and its immigration system. Let us look at what has happened in the past few months: the Harmondsworth riot, when, owing to rioting by inmates, 150 immigration detainees were bailed or freed from the immigration estate; the statement by the head of removals at the IND that he did not have "the faintest idea" how many people were currently living in the UK illegally; the admission by the Home Secretary that there are as many as 450,000 failed asylum seekers resident in the UK; the accusations of corruption at Lunar house at the IND's office, where senior workers were demanding sex from an 18-year-old girl in return for granting asylum; the discovery, also at Lunar house, that a member of an extremist Islamist group was working there unchecked by the Home Office; and perhaps most notorious of all, the fact that the Home Office itself was employing illegal workers.
	The Home Office always faces difficulties, but this is unarguably the worst record of failure in its entire history, and my remarks have covered only the immigration area of the Home Office. We need to measure the Bill against the scale of the current crisis. The Bill contains some measures that might be useful, some that might be damaging and some that will have no practical effect whatsoever. It has, as I think the Minister would admit in his private moments, no central purpose or theme. It is a rag-bag of largely unconnected measures.

Keith Vaz: Although I share some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, I know that his memory is not so short that he has forgotten the way the Home Office was run under the previous Government, when the backlog of cases was hundreds and hundreds of thousands. I personally went down to Lunar house, to find bags and bags of unopened mail. That is what was happening under a previous Home Secretary. Let us accept that part of the problem is a systemic failure that started under the previous Government.

Damian Green: As the Government limp towards their 10th anniversary, attempts to blame their problems on the previous Government become less and less plausible.
	Even though immigration policy has been one of the most significant failures of the Government, it is worth looking carefully at each of the measures that the Minister proposed, to see what deserves support and what questions need to be asked about the rest of the Bill.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is the political equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burns, and that the scale of the problem is that we have one migrant a minute coming into the country? The Bill will do nothing to tackle the scale of that problem. What we need is a limit on the number of people coming into the country each year. Does he agree that on a small island, we should have an annual limit on the number of people that we can take?

Damian Green: I am delighted that my hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to commend to the Government the Conservative party recommendation that we have an annual limit on those coming from outside the European Union to work in this country.

Vernon Coaker: How many?

Damian Green: We will have a consultation every year, and every year a Conservative Home Secretary will decide what the limit is. That will give us the controlled system that the vast majority of the British people want, as opposed to the uncontrolled and chaotic system over which the Government have presided in recent years.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a characteristically powerful case. Does he agree that it is a red herring to say that we need new types of ID documents in the years ahead to sort the problem out? If we have proper surveillance and control at all our ports of entry, people are meant to bring with them legal passports and our officials should be able to tell which is a legal passport and a legal application and which is not. It is the failure to administer the system, not the underlying documentation, that is the problem.

Damian Green: My right hon. Friend is right. I shall shortly come to our recommendations for making our borders secure. I can see the Chairman of the Select Committee itching to intervene, so I give way to him.

John Denham: Given that the Minister promised the Home Affairs Committee before Christmas that unskilled migration from outside the EU would end by the end of this year, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that his proposal for limits on new migration applies only to highly skilled migrants? What is his argument for a programme to limit people whom our economy needs and who will benefit us?

Damian Green: First, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's premise. The Minister may have asserted that, but the fact that a Home Office Minister asserts something does not make it the truth. Secondly, we need an overall limit because although we have to take economic considerations into account, we also have to take account of wider social considerations. It is the sheer scale of net immigration that matters for the provision of school services and medical services, and for the environment, town planning and so on. I think the right hon. Gentleman will accept that a proper balance must be struck, above and beyond the economic issues.

Margaret Moran: rose—

Damian Green: I must make progress, but I will give way to the hon. Lady later.
	I start with the part of the Bill that most leaps out as making unjustified claims. It is the part dealing with the deportation of criminals, starting with clause 28, which is headed "Automatic deportation". I assume that this is an attempt to justify the Prime Minister's promise on the subject, when he said in the House on 3 May 2006 that
	"it is not just a question of the existing system; it is about making sure that that system is radically overhauled so that those who are convicted of a serious criminal offence are deported automatically."—[ Official Report, 3 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 961.]
	Having read the Bill, I believe that the honest title of this clause should be "Automatic deportation, except when it isn't". This section is a result of the Home Office having one of its tabloid moments, hoping that if it talks tough, it will not matter that nothing much is actually going to change.
	Let us investigate the reality. The Lord Chancellor has already blown the gaff. He has admitted that the Prime Minister's claims that there would be automatic deportation were false. He said on the "Dimbleby" programme last year:
	"There are obviously offences where it's imprisonable but sometimes a very, very minor offence is committed which wouldn't remotely justify deportation in every circumstance".
	There have been other newspaper reports that No. 10 was forced to admit that it would not be able to send prisoners back to countries where their lives would be at risk, and that must be right.
	Let us look at a practical example. The Minister has discussed the foreign prisoners in our prisons, who represent 14 per cent. of the total prison population. Problems with the 10,000 or so foreign prisoners who were in our prisons at the end of 2005 were the cause of the sacking of the previous Home Secretary, and I am sure that the present Home Secretary would be keen to ease the prison overcrowding crisis by getting them out of our jails. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many of the 10,000 would be automatically deported under the Bill.

Liam Byrne: Our estimates for this year, for example, are that those who might be affected by the 12-month sentence clause might total 2,200, and those who might have committed an offence that is eligible under a section 72 order might total 2,100. I think that the hon. Gentleman would admit that, together, that amounts to a considerable number.

Damian Green: That is 45 per cent. of 10,000, so less than half would be eligible for automatic deportation. I think that the Minister, in one of his honest and private moments, would have to admit that talking about automatic deportation is not very honest in this context.

Roger Gale: Will my hon. Friend answer the question that the Minister failed to answer? We are talking about people who have come to this country seeking asylum, broken the law of this country and been convicted of indictable offences. Why should the British taxpayer pay for these people at all? Why are they not simply sent straight back?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend's constituents—and those of all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—will have a huge amount of sympathy with that point. It is impossible to explain why that should so often be the case. It is important to consider, when we look at this part of the Bill, that when the Government claim that they are doing something radical, different and tough, they simply are not. More than half the prisoners in jail in Britain at the moment will not be affected by this measure.

Liam Byrne: That is not the case. Some will be serving a sentence that is not coming to its conclusion. In addition, there will be those who have been recommended for deportation by a court. On top of that, there will be those who, under guidance, the Home Secretary can deem non-conducive. So actually the number will be significantly higher.

Damian Green: Nothing that the Minister has said alters his first answer, which was tremendously clear and honest. Perhaps he would like to address the point made by the Immigration Advisory Service—that this part of the Bill does not give the Home Secretary any powers that he does not already have. Its briefing on the Bill makes the point that all the relevant factors
	"can be considered under the present rules relating to deportation and the Secretary of State can deport those whose presence is not conducive to the public good...There exists a rebuttable presumption in favour of deportation."
	These measures are just rhetoric. They do not provide a proper change in the law.
	Ministers should also be aware of the possible unintended consequences of this part of the Bill. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights provides protection of the right to privacy and family life. In its briefing on the Bill, the pressure group Liberty has pointed out a potentially perverse consequence when considering the relative positions of two offenders in our jails: one who is in prison for a long time for a violent offence, and another who is serving a shorter sentence for something like burglary. As Liberty says:
	"The protections offered by article 8 relate to the impact upon family life rather than the severity of the offence...This means that the person receiving the short custodial sentence for theft, whose children have grown up, is likely to be less well protected than the person committing the more serious offence but who has younger, more dependent children."
	That, surely, is a perverse effect. It also means that a sentencing judge or magistrate might be inclined to avoid imposing a custodial sentence for an offence that carries a sentence of less than 12 months, because even if they believed that custody was justified, they would know that deportation was almost certain to follow. Some magistrates and judges would be concerned that that would be an unfair and disproportionate consequence.
	One can agree or disagree with Liberty's analysis of the effects of the clause, but it seems perfectly clear that Ministers have not thought the issue through and that the net effect will be, first, that the Home Secretary's powers will not change very much and, secondly, that fewer people might receive sentences that would lead to deportation.
	It is easy to see how the Bill could become yet another in the long line of Home Office Bills that promise more than they deliver. I hope that it avoids that fate.
	Does the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) still wish to intervene, or has the moment passed?

Margaret Moran: indicated dissent.

Damian Green: I apologise.
	I want to move on—

Stewart Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Damian Green: The moment never passes for my hon. Friend.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a disparity in respect of the recommendations within the Home Office's own enforcement manual? Irrespective of any legislation being put forward, it says:
	"Home Office guidelines suggest that the most common reasons for a court not recommending deportation are that 'its attention was not drawn to its powers in this respect or the judge decided to leave the matter to the Secretary of State.' A recommendation has no legal effect on its own, as the IND still has to decide whether or not to act upon the recommendation."
	Is it not true that, irrespective of the Bill, the Government have failed on that issue in the past, and that there is no evidence that that will change in future?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; Ministers are quick to blame the courts and judges for the manifold failures of the system and they are often unfair in doing so.

Neil Gerrard: rose—

Julie Kirkbride: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Damian Green: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).

Neil Gerrard: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman explained his party's position on this issue. Is he saying, as some of his colleagues obviously are, that people should be deported after sentences much shorter than 12 months? Is he saying that nothing should be done to change the current situation, in which people have rights of appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal? Alternatively, does he have other proposals?

Damian Green: Our proposals are that people should receive the appropriate sentences for the offences that they have committed. If such sentences entail the risk of deportation, so be it. If someone is eligible for deportation, they should be deported as soon as possible. That approach seems perfectly sensible; I am sure that the Government claim to have such an approach, although experience tells us that that is not remotely the case. My fear is that the proposals in this part of the Bill do not lead us towards that desirable state at all.

Julie Kirkbride: I have been listening carefully to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality and his assessments, particularly with regard to foreign nationals convicted of criminal offences. I am still not sure what would happen in a recent case, about which I am sure everyone in the House has heard. The case is of a Somali national who had already been found guilty of and served a sentence for sex offences, who was subsequently found guilty yet again of similar sex offences and returned to prison. Given his flagrant abuse of the hospitality given by the British people and the concern that any person might have about becoming one of his victims, would that individual, in my hon. Friend's estimation of the Government's provisions, be deported to his own country or not?

Damian Green: To some extent, that question can be better answered by the Minister. My estimation is that that would not happen at the moment, given conditions in Somalia. As it is extremely difficult to deport to some countries, I have some sympathy for the Minister in such situations—

Julie Kirkbride: I don't.

Damian Green: I see that I am more sympathetic to the Government than most of my hon. Friends; plus ça change.
	Let me move hastily on to the section dealing with immigration officers and detention at ports. We support the extension of powers given to immigration officers, but it is inadequate to meet the scale of the problems faced at our ports and airports. The Minister had a difficult time from hon. Members on both sides of the House about that set of proposals, and rightly so. It seems a small gesture in the direction of toughening up the current regime and nothing like enough to meet the scale of the crisis. There are obvious questions about the Government's proposal itself, such as whether three hours is long enough, and what happens if there are multiple incidents and it is impossible to get a police officer there in time. One can imagine serious multiple incidents happening at a busy port and the officer not being able to get there within three hours. Presumably, people will be let go.
	There is a wider point, which the Minister did not address, made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, about whether it would be much better to combine the powers of immigration officers, police officers and customs officers and use the Bill as the vehicle for bringing a proper border police into our law and order system. He will have heard in the course of the debate that that is not just Conservative party policy; it is also Liberal Democrat policy, and has been recommended by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and by distinguished Labour Members, like the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). Altogether, the Minister is more or less on his own in preferring his own tinkering to the radical change that hon. Members on both sides of the House have recommended.
	I urge the Minister to reconsider. Even if he wants to reject the advice of those of us on both sides of the House who want him to change his mind, perhaps he will listen to senior police officers. Sir Chris Fox, as president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, in 2005 said:
	"I think we should have a group of people that are made up of Police Officers, Special Branch, Immigration Officers and Customs, who have a total responsibility for all our points of entry."
	Sir Ian Blair said on February 6 2005:
	"When we got into the debate about SOCA it surprised me that we did not have a national border police."
	This is as near as we are going to get to a consensus on any aspect of immigration and asylum policy, and yet the Government are stubbornly rejecting it.

Peter Atkinson: One of the things that strikes travellers when they arrive at Britain's regional airports, such as Newcastle, is often the complete absence of any immigration officer being visible in the arrivals lounge. Nowadays, with more and more direct flights even from countries outside the EU coming into regional airports, a proper border force would give people a great deal more confidence in the system.

Damian Green: I agree. People from around the country, whether with relatively small airports— although Newcastle is not that small—or with small ports, as those of us who live in Kent know well, accept that there is a large hole. We do not have a barrier; we have a sieve. It should be relatively easy to protect an island, but we seem to find it more difficult than other countries find protecting long land borders.

David Jones: My hon. Friend's point is correct, but it does not simply apply to small ports? Holyhead, for example, is the third-largest passenger port in the United Kingdom, and yet there is no permanent immigration officer presence there. That puts tremendous additional stress on the police. Does he agree that it is all very well to confer a panoply of additional powers on immigration officers, but that if there are no immigration officers to enforce them, it is a pretty fatuous exercise?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. If immigration officers, border police or whatever they are, are not present, they are not doing any good. In addition, the professional smugglers, whether people smugglers, drug smugglers or any other kind of smugglers, know where immigration officers and customs officers are not likely to be. They therefore target those areas.

David Taylor: This morning I visited the immigration service's enforcement unit at East Midlands airport. It is not necessarily true that there is a significant disconnection between local police and immigration service staff at regional airports. The East Midlands airport unit has a police command team consisting of six officers, two being provided from each of the Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire forces. I was impressed by the scale of co-operation and the detail of the research that they carry out on the people whom they are tracking. The Minister also visited the unit a few weeks ago.

Damian Green: I am delighted to hear that the East Midlands airport unit is working well. No doubt that is why the Minister picked it for his visit. The sad fact is, however, that it does not matter much if one unit is working well; if one is working badly, that is the weak point in our defences, and we have heard in the last five minutes that in many ports and airports they are not working well enough.

Andrew MacKinlay: There is a calumny in the Bill. It states that people can be held for three hours before a police officer comes. Actually, it is the other way around: the police officer is there, and cannot summon the immigration official. That is happening, and I have documented it. The Minister shakes his head, but I will put the letter that I sent to him in the Library, and he can see for himself. The fact is that the Essex and Kent police forces— [Interruption.] I am addressing the House of Commons, if the Minister does not mind. This is a very serious point, and the Minister does not listen to some of our hon. Friends who are in the front line. When Essex and Kent police officers apprehend people, they are instructed to give them a card saying, "Go to Lunar house, Croydon". When the Essex, Kent and Port of Tilbury police contact the immigration officials, they say "Set them free." That is documented. I have sent a letter to the Minister, and I will put it in the Library this afternoon.

Damian Green: I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving a dose of realism to his party's Front Benchers, who sometimes appear to live in a parallel universe.
	The Minister will already have heard protests, not least from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), about the difficulties that his proposals will cause to the training and oversight of immigration officers. They will be given extra powers, but it is not obvious that there will be any new guidelines for them to meet, or that they will be given any extra training. Those problems have been identified by Liberty and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. If the Minister followed the almost universal advice to bring the various bodies together under a border police force, they would be given the appropriate training and oversight that we apply to our police. That in itself would reassure those—clearly represented in the House—who feel that the proposals give too much power to immigration officers.
	As for the part of the Bill that deals with biometric registration, we have no objection to the use of biometric tools for specific purposes and when individuals have control over the management of their identity, but the Government are introducing new laws that breach both those principles and therefore become an unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of the individual. The main example is of course the national identity register, but the regulations proposed in the Bill have some of the same dangerous characteristics.
	The danger is compounded by the vague nature of the proposals. Almost everything is left to secondary legislation, so it is impossible to know at this stage how all-embracing the controls will be. What is clear is that the questions arising from this part of the Bill are extremely serious. How much will the compulsory document cost, what non-biometric details will be required, and how will foreign nationals who are already here legally register for a card? Perhaps most important of all, how will the information be kept secure?
	Ministers constantly assert that once biometrics are in use, everything will be secure, 100 per cent. accurate and 100 per cent. safe. The Minister will know that people have conducted tests that simply give the lie to that assertion. As  The Guardian reported on 17 November last year, an expert from Cambridge university successfully and easily extracted data from a biometric passport with an inexpensive reader, to prove just how open to fraud they are. He commented:
	"What concerns me is that this demonstrates bad design on the part of the Home Office, and we know that government IT projects have a habit of going terribly wrong. There is a lack of security in what we can see".
	On top of that is the question that lies at the heart of our objections to the national identity register: who will have access to the information stored on the biometric visas? Clause 8 is instructive, saying that the regulations
	"may include provision permitting the use of information for specified purposes which do not relate to immigration."
	What exactly does that mean—access to benefits, health care, employment or education? Among the first people to be affected by that new requirement will be those 3.9 million people who have lived in this country, in many cases to our benefit and to their benefit, for many years. They are entitled to know exactly how intrusive the Government are planning to be.
	I hope that Ministers will also deal with the point made about that matter by Liberty, which cannot see how the creation of a biometric registration document is an effective method of dealing with the people who are living in this country without the right of residence or work. The Minister is aware that employers already face legal obligations under the Asylum and Immigration Act, which has been mentioned, and that they are obliged to make document checks. Liberty says that it is
	"not aware that there is a significant problem with employers being deceived by fraudulent employees with fake documents."
	It says, and it is right, that it would be helpful if the Government were to clarify whether there is such a big problem. Liberty says:
	"We suspect the real problem of illegal working lies not in the deceiving of honest employers but in the intentional employment of those without immigration status by unscrupulous and exploitative employers."
	I am sure that at some stage in the passage of the Bill— [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), is shaking her head. If she is saying that there are no exploitative employers who deliberately employ illegal labour, I am interested and I will leave her to explain that to Labour Members. That is probably not true. There is clearly some of the first and some of the second, but in my experience there is more of the second than the first. I am surprised that the Government appear to be rejecting that.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is most generous in allowing interventions. Following the visit that I carried out this morning, it is clear that there are exploitative employers, particularly in the construction and food processing industries, and decent employers who keep the problems at arm's length through the use of agencies. That is where the focus needs to be—on those agencies that are exploiting people for gain.

Damian Green: I suspect that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has a good point and I hope that he can convince the Minister of that.

Roger Gale: The Minister said that he hoped that there would be a lengthy debate on the biometric issue in Committee. The timetable motion is not debatable but by my calculation we have roughly 12 sittings in Committee. There are 48 clauses in the Bill—that is four clauses per sitting. I do not think that he has enough time. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Damian Green: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill gives rise to a large number of issues and I suspect that there will not be time to discuss them all fully in Committee, but that is a common problem with the Government, who have never taken parliamentary scrutiny seriously. As a result, every year, they pass laws that are worse than they were when they were leaving the Minister, as it were. The problem has come back to bite them.
	On the issue of the treatment of claimants, the Minister will be pleased to hear that we welcome the requirement for people granted limited leave to remain to report to an immigration officer, but we hope that that will become a genuine requirement, and not go the way of the completely ineffective sex offender registration system. We have no objections in principle to the changes in support for asylum seekers. We will have questions at Committee stage about the removal of the right to present new evidence at the appeal stage of an immigration hearing. The Minister will be aware that strong arguments have been advanced by lobby groups against the reduction of appeal rights. Indeed, the House should hear a point that was made in the House in 1992:
	"The immigration officer who knows that his decision may be subject to appeal is likely to be a good deal more circumspect, careful and even-handed than the officer who knows that his power of decision is absolute. That is simply, I fear, a matter of human nature, quite apart from anything else." —[ Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 43.]
	That point was made by the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary. Just because the Prime Minister says something does not mean it was not true, and I think that he was right about that.
	Under the heading of "Enforcement", we particularly welcome the clauses designed to combat people trafficking. We are pleased that the Government listened to us and to the many groups that called on them to sign up to the European convention against human trafficking, and we urge them to use the Bill to put into effect some of other suggestions for fighting that vile crime. It was clear from the Minister's speech that he has read all my speeches and press reports avidly, so he will be aware that we recommended separate interviews at all airports for women and children travelling with an adult who is not a parent, guardian or husband. Every police force and local government department should have a strategy for dealing with suspected victims of trafficking, and the Government should set up a helpline to provide information for women who have been trafficked and for people who suspect that exploitation has taken place. We will try to help the Minister to go as fast as he wants to go in that part of the Bill, because the UK should take the lead in combating people trafficking, which is modern-day slavery. The 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade is a good year for us to take significant steps forward in fighting the modern slave trade.
	The Bill is a long way from being perfect—frankly, it is a long way from being very good—and it certainly does not face up to the scale of the crisis confronting the immigration system. Britain's borders are not secure, and they have not been made any more secure by recent decisions at the Home Office. The Government have made some gestures towards better security in the Bill, and it is our duty as a responsible Opposition to help with that. It is vital for the country that we develop safe and secure borders, and an immigration system that is once again fit for purpose. Our party will play its part in making that happen.

John Denham: I broadly welcome the Bill, and the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee report that was published last summer. Shortly afterwards, the Government introduced their proposals, many of which are reflected in the detail of the Bill and the thinking behind it. There have been significant changes in immigration policy in the past six months. The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who made a very clear speech, was rather dismissive of the Government's decision to end primary immigration from outside the EU by low-skilled workers, but that is a major policy change that gives the lie to consistent claims that there is a system of uncontrolled immigration. It reflects the reality of the labour market and the expansion of the European Union, as it enables migration policy from outside the EU to concentrate on the contribution from highly skilled workers if there is a clear need for such workers in the economy. That is a massive shift in migration policy, compared with the policy of a few years ago, and it should be welcomed.
	I should like to make a few general points about the Bill's context before making some more detailed ones. May I draw attention to a couple of conclusions in the report that the Home Affairs Committee published last July? The UK Borders Bill is primarily about borders, and we emphasised that in a world where there is mass movement for many different purposes it is impossible to control migration purely through the security of borders. We said that illegal migration would increasingly have to be dealt with by internal measures, rather than at borders themselves. We concluded:
	"This represents one of the more fundamental changes to the purpose of the immigration system in the twenty-first century. The focus can no longer remain so heavily weighted towards initial entry and border control. While these controls must be sustained and indeed improved, far greater effort will in future have to go into the enforcement of the Immigration Rules within the UK."
	The Committee concluded:
	"A major test of the Government's new approach to the IND will be the extent to which it has recognised the importance and implication of this change."
	That was an important conclusion. The Government—and the proposal under discussion—rightly want to strengthen and improve border controls. However, an illusion is about in public debate that border controls alone can deal with illegal migration. That is simply untrue, because such a large group of people moves in and out of our country, and we want that to happen. That group includes ourselves; we travel for business, to visit families and so forth. A major part of dealing with illegal migration must happen internally. Some of the measures in the Bill, particularly those to do with biometric ID cards, are clearly aimed at achieving that, as are the measures to do with sharing information between the immigration system and the tax and revenue system.

Stewart Jackson: I agree that it is important that data and information are shared. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Government's decision of last May not to take part in the sharing of criminal records data between seven EU countries, and why does he think that that decision was made?

John Denham: The Select Committee is currently looking at the evolution of such matters within the European Union. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Prum treaty and to countries generally towards the eastern part of the EU and central Europe. There is a major issue in that. I do not want to anticipate the Committee's conclusion, but my feeling is that it would be better if data sharing took place by agreement of the EU as a whole, rather than by small groups in the EU breaking away and coming to their own arrangements. However, I must say to the hon. Gentleman that that is a matter of some debate in the Committee, and we shall have to see what conclusion we come to on it. The Government had a reasonable case for not simply leaping into signing up to something that had been decided by a small number of EU member states.
	Let me return to the point about internal measures against illegal migration. The clear conclusion of the Committee was that:
	"The employment of illegal workers should be one of the main targets for action against illegal migrants who are already living illegally in the UK."
	It particularly recommended that:
	"Enforcement work on tax and national insurance should take place in conjunction with all the other legal measures available to tackle abuse in the informal labour market."
	We found that evidence suggested that past strategies of trying to focus on certain groups of illegal workers in specific workplaces and of removing them from the country was missing the point. The fundamental problem is employers who are abusive and exploitative—and who abuse and exploit illegal workers and many other workers, too. The problem employers we should be most worried about do not just employ illegal workers: they do not pay their tax and national insurance; they do not comply with the minimum wage; they do not follow health and safety requirements; and they do not follow employment legislation. If we had a cross-Government drive against abusive and exploitative employers and agencies, we would certainly deal with illegal migration, but in the course of doing that, we would also deal with a lot of other abuse and exploitation.
	The Minister is moving the Government in that direction—the Bill is a move in that direction—but he has some battles to win with other parts of the Government if they are to become fully fledged partners in the exercise. I will give him all the best support that I can in respect of those arguments. The Select Committee came to the view that targeting abusive employers would bring more success in dealing with illegal migration than would simply trying to find five or six people somewhere, or diving into a factory to grab 10 people—and let us not forget the costs of removing such people.

Stewart Hosie: Is there not a danger that those who are here illegally and are working on the fringes of illegality will, when faced with biometric checks for something or other, be forced deeper into the illegal economy and further out of sight of the authorities that can provide help and assistance—and out of sight of the law enforcement agencies that are looking for them? Might not people be pushed further underground because of fear of ID checks of the sort that the right hon. Gentleman describes?

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Some have responded to it by saying, "Let's have an amnesty." The Committee considered that and came to the conclusion that it would be the wrong approach to take. Until we have a secure regime in place at the very least, an amnesty would merely be an advertising brochure for the people traffickers. They could say, "Well, you've only got to get there, and once you're in, you'll be all right."
	It is true that the Minister will need to have in place a strategy to deal with the inevitable consequences of success both in tackling illegal labour and, using the biometric card, in dealing with access to public services and benefits. There is no doubt that there will be a difficult period. However, I see no way of avoiding that obstacle if we are to get credibility into the system in respect of dealing with illegal labour.

David Taylor: Of course my right hon. Friend is right that the focus should be on illegal working, but as we learned in respect of the gangmasters legislation, it is extraordinarily difficult to get cross-departmental co-operation even when the ends are shared. That is obviously still the case in 2007, as it was when the gangmasters legislation was under consideration some years ago. Does my right hon. Friend have any suggestions as to how individual Departments can be encouraged to co-operate and exchange information within the narrow limits specified by Ministers?

John Denham: Let me make two points in response to that. First, in the past few months there has been a strengthening of cross-government systems and organisation for dealing with such matters. The Minister has, I think, indicated that more on that will come into the public domain in the next few weeks, so we will have better structures in place. Secondly, Members need to be very clear that it cannot always be the Home Office's responsibility to deal with all such issues. We need to put pressure on the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments that have an interest in this area.

Jon Cruddas: On the amnesty question, the Greater London authority estimates that in London alone there are some 320,000 unregularised migrants—not including dependants—many of whom will be working. If the regime is successful in clamping down on employers—I agree with my right hon. Friend's sentiment on that—there is the possibility that we will push tens of thousands of people out of work who have no status in society, and that that will become a major public policy issue for social services and councils. What remedy might there be for that, other than an amnesty?

John Denham: My hon. Friend is right that there will be a major public policy issue, but I see no way of avoiding that now. We might have to put in place measures that enable people to return home, if they wish to do so. Also, there will at least be a better knowledge of what our labour market genuinely needs if people are paid a proper rate of pay, rather than the poverty pay that is paid at present. I do not pretend that I have all the answers. I have raised this issue with the Minister. There must be a strategy for dealing with such a situation. However, I say to my hon. Friend that the alternative, which is simply to regularise everybody's position, would lead to another 320,000 people turning up within the space of a few months or a few years in the expectation that the same would happen to them.
	We are having a debate on this issue in this country, but it needs to be raised across the EU. Select Committee members went to Poland last week to visit Frontex, the border agency charged with co-ordinating European border activity both across the land border in eastern Europe and in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. We were interested to hear about the work that it was doing, but the fact is that the same issues arise time and again. Trying to strengthen border patrols along the Mediterranean will not work as long as there is massive use of very poorly paid and exploited labour—in the agricultural sector, for instance, as is the case in Italy. It is not possible to police a border if behind that border there are many opportunities to work—albeit in very bad conditions, but ones that, to refer to the example I have just given, are better for the many African people employed than are those in the countries from which they have come. The Government need to raise this issue in the EU, so that there is effective labour market enforcement across the EU and not only in the UK, because ultimately what happens along the European borders affects the pressure on our own borders. That is of relevance to some of the issues in the Bill.

Margaret Moran: I did not have the privilege of being on the Select Committee at that time, but I commend my right hon. Friend on bringing this issue to our attention. On visiting Ukraine, it became apparent that borders throughout eastern Europe are very transparent and, therefore, any approach that purports to be border control is, as he said, entirely permeable. As the Ukrainian authorities said, they are dealing with Russian immigrants coming into that country and perhaps purporting to be Poles. So we cannot possibly win with the Opposition's strategy, which is to provide greater and greater walls to imaginary castles. That strategy will not sustain a proper immigration policy.

John Denham: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I shall return briefly to EU issues in a moment.
	I shall not rehearse too much the argument raised earlier about the immigration officer powers in the Bill, but I hope that we can explore in Committee whether there should be a greater alignment of immigration and customs officer powers. Let us imagine that a car arrives with one British citizen, one foreign national, a quantity of cigarettes and some money. The reality is that if there is an immigration officer and a customs officer, one will be able to detain one of those citizens, and the other will be able to detain the other. One will have the power to confiscate the car and the cigarettes, and the other will not, and an assumption about where the money came from will determine which of them is able to confiscate the money. That is a slightly fatuous example, but all sorts of practical problems will arise.

Andrew MacKinlay: It is very realistic.

John Denham: Thank you. All sorts of problems will arise from joint operations involving members of the two services, and a good favour could be done to everyone by aligning their powers. We do not have to go as far as having a border force at this stage, but simply providing some legal clarity would be enormously useful. Joint operations will move us in the direction in which we wish to go.
	On identity cards, it is worth reinforcing the point that, although we talk about foreign nationals, some confusion exists. Compulsory biometric ID cards will be for those outside the EU and the European economic area.

Edward Garnier: I shall, if I may, with the greatest of respect, correct the right hon. Gentleman. The Identity Cards Act 2006 requires anyone in this country over the age of 16 who is here for more than three months to register their details with the national identity register, and they will be subject to a penalty if they do not.

John Denham: The strategy in the Bill, which the Minister outlined today, is targeted at another group of people. The compulsion will come in for those outside the EEA first. We will arrive—soon, I hope—at the point where everyone has a biometric ID card. That is clearly the ideal situation, which, in my view, we should work towards as quickly as possible. However, starting with selected groups of people outside the EEA will create a period during which there will be some premium on having identity documents from other EU states, as a way for those who are clearly not British to establish a right to be here. I hope that the Government and the Opposition can explore in Committee whether there are sufficient powers and penalties regarding the fraudulent use of identity documents from elsewhere within the EU. Someone who fraudulently uses such documents should face a penalty sufficient to give rise to a presumption that any other claims to immigration status will be removed.

Edward Garnier: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, while we still have a free travel area between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, and while we are not yet assured that Scottish legislation mirroring the Bill will come into force at the same time, there are two enormous holes in this so-called UK Borders Bill?

John Denham: There is indeed no end of material for fruitful discussion in Committee, and I am sure that those issues will be raised. I wanted to draw attention to the position regarding EU documentation, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) said, there are reasons to be concerned about the practice in that respect.
	I have two other brief points. I welcome the proposal to remove the presentation of new evidence at appeal for decisions made according to the points-based system regarding work-related visas. However, I should point out that the Select Committee, which first came up with the proposal, did not want that power to be limited to the points-based system. We wanted it to cover all appeals, including family visits, which we observed a number of times at appeal tribunals. The problem is that at the moment, the entry clearance officer takes a decision based on one set of information, and then wholly new information is presented on appeal and a different conclusion is reached. It is not really an appeal, but a re-hearing of the same issues. On occasion, that happens simply because information that could have been provided at the initial stage was not, such as authentic information about the sponsor's bank account or financial circumstances.
	We suggested that the simplest thing would be to have a proper stage in the decision-making procedure at which entry clearance officers say that they are minded to refuse an application for lack of clear evidence or proof in a particular case. So if someone said, "I am going to turn this down because I am not satisfied about the financial documentation", or "I am not satisfied that you have no family members living in the country that would lead you to return", there would be a period of time in which those facts could be established and the case re-examined by the entry clearance officer. That would prevent the enormous waste of time and money that occurs when cases are transferred to the appeal tribunal here. There is a lengthy delay while documents are put together and sent halfway around the world, and the appeal is one of a long listing of appeals. I urge Ministers to consider the idea of a "minded to refuse" stage.
	It is true, as many of us know from our casework, that on occasion, writing to an entry clearance officer with new information leads them to exercise their discretion and to change the decision. However, we also know that that often does not happen, and that new information is rejected on the basis that it was not presented at the same time. Ministers have gone part of the way towards a more rational and streamlined system, but they could have gone much further, in line with the Select Committee's proposals.
	Finally, as we move to the new legal framework and the presumption towards the deportation of foreign prisoners, there is an argument, at least, for examining how we use our prison estate, particularly for foreign prisoners who will be returned to their own country either part way through, or at the end of, their sentence. There is a compelling argument for having prisons where the regime concentrates on such prisoners, the issues that they will face on returning to their country of origin, and their rehabilitation and reintegration needs when they return home. At the moment, most prisons have a significant minority of foreign prisoners, and, by and large, they follow a regime that is designed to return people to communities and labour markets in this country that are inappropriate for the prisoners we are serving. Ministers should look at this issue. The Government's new approach, whatever the legal niceties regarding the powers in the Bill, raises the question of what sort of prison estate we should have for foreign prisoners who will not remain in this country when they finish their sentence. I hope that that issue can be addressed.
	I welcome the broad direction of the Bill, and I hope that the issues that I have raised—many of which were raised by the Home Affairs Committee—can be used to strengthen the Bill as it makes its way through the House.

Paul Rowen: We all want an immigration system that works. We want a system that is fair to everyone, firm where it needs to be firm, properly resourced, and conducted in a measured political climate where judgments are made in the interests of the nation, not in response to fevered headlines. It is therefore deeply worrying that the Bill's contents have led Liberty to describe it as
	"one of the worst examples of cynical legislation"
	that it has seen.
	This is the Government's third immigration Bill in as many years and their fifth since they were first elected. It is their fifth attempt to get a handle on the system by making extra laws, but by also providing limited enactment and enforcement of existing legislation and rules. The real problems with immigration are administrative, not legislative, and can be blamed on the Government's use of migration as a political football. Gimmicks, headlines and targets have destroyed any semblance of a managed migration system, and yet another law will not solve it. The introduction of automatic deportation is emblematic of the Government's whole approach to home affairs. Headline-driven targets and gimmicks push the system to breaking point. Administrative breakdown causes a scandal—in this case, more than 1,000 foreign prisoners being released after completion of their sentences without being considered for deportation.
	The Government overreact with "tough" new laws and offences and "tough" new targets that, instead of solving the problem, put even greater burdens on the administrators. The Department is in crisis and Ministers who think that legislation is a substitute for real action are not living in the real world. The issues that affect our constituents are not dealt with by this Bill. For example, I have written to the Minister about the failure in my constituency to remove five husbands whose arranged marriages have broken down. All the information has been provided, but the men have not been removed and continue to harass and harangue their former wives. The Bill does not even begin to address such problems. Nor does it address the length of time taken by the IND to process applications for the right to remain. There is no need for additional powers, but there is a real need for administrative systems to be made to work—to become, in the Home Secretary's words, "fit for purpose".
	Nonetheless, some elements of the Bill have merit, including turning the immigration and nationality directorate into an independent agency. We will seek to amend some of the proposals in the Bill in Committee, but we must not pretend that extra powers alone will be enough. Immigration chaos will end only when the Government start doing less to do it better.
	The first four clauses give immigration officers at ports new powers to detain people suspected of non-immigration offences. They do not contain any suggestion for an integrated border force. Instead, it is intended to allow the existing border control authorities to work more closely together. A truly integrated force would require new, not just redeployed, resources. It is not enough simply to shift police officers away from their current duties or put existing customs officials in new uniforms. We believe that there should be a unified border force and that the level of integration in the Bill is not enough. For example, at Heathrow airport, four police forces operate in addition to immigration officers, revenue and customs officers and security forces. A unified force would secure our borders more effectively and efficiently. The Government have stated that 24-hour security at all ports of entry would cost only £105 million a year, but they are spending nearly £100,000 a day on unworkable, illiberal ID cards.
	The powers seem generally appropriate, though we want to ensure that comprehensive training will be given to immigration officers who are designated in that way. As other hon. Members have said, the powers need also to be exercised in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice, which provide the framework within which the police operate. Were children to be detained, for example, the immigration officer should have a duty to request the attendance of an appropriate adult.
	The proposals for biometric registration seem driven by the need for a dry run for ID cards rather than being solely for the purpose of better immigration management. While the increased use of biometrics on visas and immigration documents has clear advantages, we have serious concerns about the practicalities of the proposals. First, issuing documents to the 3.9 million people already in the UK, many of whom have indefinite leave to remain and therefore no contact with immigration services, will be an administrative nightmare. There is no indication of how much that will cost, where the processing will happen and what provision will be made for those who cannot travel. I could list many more such concerns.
	For those coming into the country for the first time, there will be a major problem in processing the extra information at our struggling consulates. What additional resources will be provided at, say, the high commission in Islamabad to cope with the extra work? At the moment, the high commission there is issuing visas for appeals granted last September. One can only imagine what additional delays will be caused to applications for visas for normal and ordinary events such as family weddings.
	Because the information to be included in the biometric immigration document is to be provided by regulations, we have no idea of the scope of that, or of what will be demanded. What will happen to the BID of those who are subsequently granted British citizenship? Will the BID be an effective enforcement tool against those who are illegally in the UK? It is clear that the problem is not in finding those who are working or living illegally in the UK, but in enforcing action against them. For example, in 2004-05, raids found nearly 4,000 illegal workers, but only eight employers were taken to court and found guilty. That is the problem with many of the proposals in the Bill. There are already plenty of powers, but we are not seeing any action.
	The Bill also states that the use of BIDs can be specified not just for immigration purposes, but in employment, access to benefits and NHS funding. Can the Minister explain why, for example, the requirement for employers to check biometric information is being introduced without the public consultation that the Department promised last year? Why has there been no published assessment of the financial impact on the public or private sectors of compulsory checking of BIDs?
	The proposals on conditional leave to remain pick up on suggestions made by the Liberal Democrats for handling the difficult situation of people who have been ordered by a court to be deported, but who cannot actually be deported for human rights reasons. It is wholly right that people should not be deported to places where they face torture. We suggested developing a way to better monitor those few individuals in the UK who cannot be detained or deported. The proposals in the Bill seem a workable solution, although appropriate protections of proportionality should be built in, especially where they are used for children.
	We welcome clause 17, which will ensure that an asylum seeker can continue to be supported at all stages up to an appeal being determined. However, the Bill does not address what happens when asylum seekers go underground and a local authority has to put their children into care.
	For enforcement operations, the police will have the power to seize cash in illegal working cases. They will have powers to dispose of seized property. They already have the power to seize it; apparently it is sitting in warehouses. They want to be able to extradite people who are committing UK immigration offences from abroad. Those powers are all welcome, although again we warn that the real problem is enforcement, not a lack of powers. There have been only 15 successful prosecutions of employers of illegal migrants in the last five years. It is also a measure of how badly the Government's rushed approach to legislation serves us that they took powers to seize goods but not to dispose of them, so that they have warehouses full of things that they cannot dispose of. If matters were more considered, perhaps such holes would not appear.
	The provisions on automatic deportation raise the most concerns. Although people who seriously breach the trust under which they are in this country should be deported, automatic deportation, without consideration of other factors, could cause serious problems. That decision has clearly been taken to satisfy the Prime Minister's rhetoric during the foreign prisoners crisis in April and May last year and his reckless pledge to deport everyone, regardless of human rights or any other considerations. Rules are being changed even though the problem was not the lack of power to deport, but the failure to get around to deporting people.
	The Home Secretary has already removed from the immigration rules the capacity to consider factors such as length of residence in the United Kingdom; strength of connections with the United Kingdom; personal history, including character, conduct and employment record; domestic circumstances; previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted; compassionate circumstances; and any representations received on the person's behalf. What can be the harm in considering those factors?
	The overreaction to the foreign prisoners scandal caught up many people who had a strong case for staying in the UK, despite having made a mistake. Deporting every person who commits a crime, even if they have been in the UK for decades and have children and other family in this country, cannot be right, fair or proper.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is making a reasonably cogent argument, but there does seem to be naivety and a lack of reality. Far be it from me to support the Government, but we are talking about 9,700 people or thereabouts who have committed criminal offences. We must have a degree of reality about that. Our constituents would expect us to deal with those people robustly. Why do not the Liberal Democrats agree with that?

Paul Rowen: The reality is that the judge already has the power to order a deportation. However, a deportation should follow consideration of the case; it should not be automatic. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a few examples to illustrate my point. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) dealt with the case of Sakchai Makao, a Thai national who had lived on Shetland for 10 years. He went off the rails after the death of his stepfather and set fire to a car. He served eight months. He committed the crime four years ago, but was rounded up last year. He no longer spoke Thai or had any real family connections in Thailand, yet he was threatened with deportation. Only the strength of feeling among the people of Shetland and their campaign prevented him from being removed.
	Ernesto Leal arrived in this country 30 years ago, after fleeing General Pinochet's regime, under which his father had been tortured. Ernesto Leal's status in this country had never been in question and, although convicted of a crime, as a first-time offender with no previous convictions he served 18 months on the judge's recommendation. He was then released and adhered strictly to his probation requirements.

David Davies: I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not tell us what the crime was.

Paul Rowen: I shall have to get back to the hon. Gentleman about that. Those are real cases, involving people whom the judge could have ordered to be deported. The problem is not that the powers for deportation do not exist, but that they have not been used by the judiciary. We should not make a new rule that makes things manifestly unfair just because the system is not operating properly at the moment.

Edward Garnier: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The judge does not have a power to deport, but merely a power to recommend that the Home Secretary consider deportation. There is a perfectly good debate to be had about whether deportation should become a sentence, but that is not the position at present, so although the hon. Gentleman may have complaints about particular sentences and questions about why the individuals who have been recommended for deportation have not been deported, he cannot abuse the judiciary for not deporting people.

Paul Rowen: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention, but I would be interested to know what the Conservative policy is. We agree with the provision whereby a decision to deport will automatically become deportation, but in fact there has always been a presumption of that happening. The fact that it is not happening does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with the law but that we have yet another example of the systemic failure of the Home Office.

Edward Garnier: That was not the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.

Paul Rowen: No; the point that we were making was that automatic deportation in relation to a period of imprisonment of 12 months is not in itself fair or just and does not take account of the cases and issues that I have mentioned.
	After examining the cases of the 1,000 foreign nationals who were not considered for deportation, the Home Office itself said that about 40 per cent. of them were not to be deported. According to its criteria, it did not consider them as necessarily needing deporting. We believe that, instead of automatic deportation, the courts should make the decision on deportation of foreign national offenders according to the facts of the case. We need to beef up the powers in that regard, rather than making the fundamental change that the Government are talking about.
	We hope that those concerns can be addressed in Committee to improve the Bill. We will table amendments. We welcome some parts of the Bill, because they offer good and important developments. However, it would be unfortunate if yet another chance to construct an immigration system that works and is fit for purpose was wasted by playing to the tabloid gallery or sidelined by the desire to pilot through an unpopular Identity Cards Bill.

Neil Gerrard: I would not say that I was enthusiastic about seeing the Bill, because over the past few years there has been so much legislation on immigration and asylum that I sometimes think the Home Office should be banned from introducing any more legislation for three or four years—Ministers might enjoy that.
	I can understand the reasoning behind many parts of the Bill, but I have a real problem with the lack of detail in it about what will happen and how it will work. I am referring to the powers of arrest for immigration officers, powers on illegal working and powers on deportation. In many respects, how the Bill works will become clear only when we see the regulations. An enormous amount is left to regulations, which is a trend that I see in more and more Bills now and which I do not particularly like, because it means that often we do not know precisely how a Bill will work and what it will do.
	I understand the point that we do not want too much detail in the Bill, because if we try to put every single dot and comma in the Bill, the tiniest change means coming back for primary legislation. However, in far too many Bills such an enormous amount is left to regulations that we end up relying on assurances from Ministers about how a Bill will work, despite what appear to be wide powers in the measure. I am not casting aspersions on the good faith of Ministers, but that does mean that there are no guarantees for the future. In addition, of course, regulations cannot be amended. We might think that 90 per cent. of a regulation is acceptable but 10 per cent. is a problem, and there will be no way to amend it as we can amend the primary legislation.
	All the way through the Bill, it is the lack of detail and what will come along when we see the regulations that concerns me. I can understand the reasoning for the first few clauses on immigration officers' powers of detention. Let us say that a British citizen was trying to leave the country and there is a warrant for that person's arrest or that person was known to have committed a crime. If an immigration officer was the only person at the port and no police were there, he could not stop and detain that person. I understand that a loophole exists, but I am concerned that the rules must be clear on immigration officers' accountability and the routes for complaint or challenge against the use of their powers.
	The suggestion that PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—should apply has been made already. What happens when the immigration officer tries to detain someone? Does he have the power to question that person? If so, would that happen under caution? How would that relate to PACE? It is important that we get this right, because the Bill includes a criminal offence of obstructing the immigration officer in the carrying out of that function. In effect, there is a criminal offence of not co-operating with the immigration officer, so it is important that we know exactly what the rules are, what the powers are, what the limitations on them are and how they can be challenged if they are used inappropriately.
	Clearly, the clauses on biometric registration are steps on the way to ID cards. We know from the debate on the Identity Cards Bill that it was always intended that one of the first groups of people to be subject to ID card legislation would be foreign nationals. There is no surprise in that, but some of the questions that now arise are similar to those that arose about the Identity Cards Act 2006.
	It is not clear to me from the Bill where the data that are collected will be stored. Will we have a card with a chip on which the information is stored, so that the information is carried around on the card? Or will we have, as we were promised with the Identity Cards Bill, a major database behind the card? That is important; some of us who have real problems with ID cards would feel less uncomfortable with a chip on the card, rather than one with a big database behind it. The same applies with the Bill and we have questions about who will have access to the data. What will be the data protection regime?
	Issues relating to children have been mentioned. When we debated the Identity Cards Bill, we were specifically told that there was no intention to introduce ID cards for children under the age of 16, but there is a specific reference in clause 6 to the possibility of the registration of under-16s, despite what was said earlier.
	Some of the powers look extremely wide and we need to know what they mean and how they will be used. For instance, clause 7 will allow the consequences of a failure to comply with biometric registration
	"to be at the discretion of the Secretary of State."
	That is a very wide power: the Secretary of State can impose a penalty on someone for not complying with the registration, but there is no indication of what that penalty might or might not be.
	A few days ago, I raised with the Minister the question of how the card will be used. For instance, could the police stop someone and ask them for their card? The Minister has assured me in writing——and mentioned earlier today——that that would not be the case. However, we would assume that an immigration officer could ask for the card and that it will be asked for in a variety of circumstances. Let us suppose that there was a raid on a factory where it was thought that a significant number of employees were working illegally—the sort of thing that we know happens. People in that factory may require the card; others will not: people who are British citizens but who happen to have come to this country as migrants. We must be sure that the checking of such people, who might include British citizens, will be done with sensitivity.
	I am not clear either, given the Bill's phrasing, exactly who in the end will have the biometric card. The Bill talks about people who are subject to immigration control. It appears that that will be interpreted to include people who have indefinite leave to remain, on the ground that it is possible for that person's indefinite leave to be revoked at some point. For instance, if someone with indefinite leave stays out the country for two years or more, the indefinite leave lapses. Is it the intention that everyone who has indefinite leave to remain but has not then acquired British citizenship will be brought into the ambit of the Bill? That is a very large number of people and it will include many family members of people who are British citizens. After living in this country for years and years and having indefinite leave to remain, they would feel some resentment if they were asked to sign up to a biometric card on the ground that they were foreign nationals.
	I can understand perfectly well that people should be able to prove that they have a right to work and to gain access to a benefit or a public service. It may well be that a single secure document, rather than the vast number of documents that can be used now, would be a considerable help in that respect. I have certainly come across cases—I am sure that other hon. Member have, too—that involve people who find it difficult to convince an employer that they have the right to work, because they have a three-year-old status letter from the Home Office that is getting tatty and does not look like the genuine article. I have also dealt with constituents who have had problems proving to the Benefits Agency that they have a right to gain access to benefits. Responsible employers are reluctant to employ people whom they think might be subject to immigration control or perhaps do not have the right to work. I can understand that such things can be a two-way street and that people could benefit from being able to produce that secure document.
	I am also concerned about some points that were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) about the consequences of a move towards cracking down on illegal working. I agree with absolutely everything that he said about the employers whom we should be targeting. Those people will not just be employing illegal workers; they will not be paying VAT, national insurance or tax properly, and so on. There is no question but that we should be targeting those people, but we will inevitably throw up conceivably very large numbers of people who are working illegally and people who have overstayed—some of whom have been here a long time and have families, mortgages and children in school—and we must have some way to deal with those people if were not going to create chaos. Chaos will certainly be caused in their lives if they are suddenly told after years of working that they are no longer able to do so.
	My right hon. Friend said that he would rule out an amnesty because it would become a magnet. I have heard that sort of argument before, but it does not necessarily convince me, if the rules are made clear enough. For example, in recent years, there was effectively an amnesty for asylum seeker families with children who had been here a certain length of time and whose children had been born before a particular date. I do not see any evidence at all that that led to lots more people coming to this country with their families to seek asylum because they thought that there might be another amnesty in two or three years. I am not necessarily convinced that an amnesty has to act as a magnet if the rules are made clear.

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman will surely appreciate that, in a country where the standard of living falls far below that in the United Kingdom, if people see that they can get into the UK and get an amnesty after a period of years, that is a good incentive to come here.

Neil Gerrard: If we are moving to a system that involves points-based migration controls and better controls on illegal working—something that we need to address through tackling employers—we somehow have to deal with the people who are in the country here and now, some of whom have been here for a long time. I would not argue for an out-and-out amnesty. I am saying, let us have some rules that look at how long someone has been in the country and how long they have been working. Perhaps in the first place we could just give them a limited leave to remain—in other words, the possibility of earning the right to stay here permanently. Whether we go down that road or not, I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen that the Government have to be prepared to deal with those people, and to do so systematically, if we are not going to cause a lot of problems for individuals. I know where those individuals will end up when they get those problems: in our constituency surgeries, and in large numbers in the inner-city parts of London.

Stewart Jackson: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the problems to which he refers already exist for legal migrants in this country. They are being exploited by some employers, they live in houses in multiple occupation, and they are displacing low-skill and low-wage indigenous host community work forces, which is causing community cohesion problems—something that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) has drawn attention to. The Government have to look at all those issues. I am sure that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) will not agree with me, but the Government have to look at the impact of both legal and illegal immigration on the local delivery of services.

Neil Gerrard: Of course the Government have to look at the impact of migration on delivery of services, but where I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I would part company is on the question of whether migration is good for the economy. I think that, in general, migration has been good for the economy. There is no question but that, when people are working illegally and being exploited, that affects many other people.
	I will try to conclude my remarks, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall refer quickly to a couple of other points in the Bill. Clause 16 allows conditions to be imposed on people with limited leave to remain in relation to reporting and residence. I can see the arguments in the specific cases that have been cited, but the drafting of that clause leaves the provision very wide. It could apparently be made to apply to far more people than were referred to in the debate earlier. That is another example of where more clarity is needed in the Bill.
	On new evidence and appealing, I understand the arguments, but I again agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen: if all that happens is what is proposed in the Bill, that will lead to more clogging of the system. It will lead to people reapplying, paying again and going round and round. If we did have a "minded to refuse" stage, that would be a way of cutting through that and getting rid of some of the problems.
	The final issue that I want to mention is deportation. I am concerned about the threshold that is being suggested. It covers a wide range of offences. We need to be sure that the process will allow for proper consideration in relation to anybody who is making the claim on human rights grounds or in connection with the refugee convention. The issue is a bit like illegal working in that it has the potential to throw up cases of families who have been settled here for many years. We need to think about the impact on the family when we are looking at whether to deport someone. I do not have any problem whatsoever with deporting somebody who has been convicted of serious offences, but the list could include people who have not committed such a serious offence. We could be talking about a first-time offender who has done something stupid behind the wheel of a car and who ends up with a sentence of more than 12 months. That person could have been in the country for a long time and have a family. We need to get the balance right.
	I said initially that I could see the reasoning behind much of what is in the Bill. There are issues of principle that I do not have any problem with, but there is an enormous amount of detail that we need to go through in the later stages to get things right. Otherwise, I am afraid that we are going to end up with powers that are so wide that we will not be able to get things right in the regulation.

David Davies: The history of Britain is one of immigration—often coming from the south or the east. We are constantly reminded of that. It is a historical fact, but we are often reminded of it because it is seen by some as a reason to do absolutely nothing about the unparalleled levels of immigration at the moment. If one looks back in history at our experiences of immigration, one can draw certain lessons from them. For example, when immigration has been on a small scale and has taken place in a controlled fashion, and when there has been a willingness on the part of the immigrating community to integrate themselves, it has usually been a successful and happy experience. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Jews who came here under Oliver Cromwell, the Huguenots who came here after the edict of Fontainebleau and, more recently, the Ugandans who came here because of Idi Amin. Those are all good examples of immigration into this country where the host nation benefited, as did those who came here.
	Throughout our history, there have of course been many other examples that have not been so happy. Those who say that immigration is always a good thing ought to look at their history books a little more closely. Wherever it has taken place in an uncontrolled fashion and has involved very large numbers it has almost inevitably resulted in forms of conflict with the host community and in a lack of willingness on the part of those coming here to integrate themselves. I would not even begin to compare what is going on at the moment with things that happened in Britain's pre-history, but immigration is very much out of control.

Kerry McCarthy: The hon. Gentleman has given some examples of when he thinks that communities have integrated successfully. Perhaps he would care to give some examples of when he thinks that they have not integrated so successfully.

David Davies: I am not sure whether you want historical examples. Obviously, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were an example of mass migration that did not work terribly well as far as the host population was concerned. If you wanted something more contemporary, you need only look at some of the comments that have been made by your own Front-Bench Members recently—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language when he is addressing another Member of the House.

David Davies: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady need only listen to some of the comments that have been made by Members on her own Front Bench, who have referred to the fact that certain minorities that have come to this country have sadly not integrated very well. Her Government, and perhaps previous Governments, bear some of the responsibility for that because of the rather pernicious ideology of multiculturalism, which encouraged people to celebrate the things that made them different, rather than to celebrate the fact that we are all British and live in this great and wonderful country.
	I fear that the Bill will do little to change anything. It will certainly not change the weight of numbers coming into the country, which is putting severe strain on our social services and housing services, and, in some areas, on our schools and hospitals. It is certainly putting a strain on wages. The Welsh Affairs Committee is carrying out an inquiry into globalisation. One of the papers from the CBI rather gloatingly referred to the fact that the large number of immigrants has pushed down wages for lower-skilled workers. The CBI is absolutely delighted about that, of course. It said that that had kept down wage inflation, which it saw as a perfectly good thing. Many of those who work at the lower end of society—although that is not a phrase that I like to use very much; I am talking about those who work on lower pay—would not see that as a terribly good thing. Many of those people are themselves recent immigrants.

Jeremy Browne: On a point of clarification, does the hon. Gentleman tell his constituents that he comes to this House and argues for policies that would increase the wages that they would have to pay, for example, for some building work to extend their home or to get a plumber? Is he arguing that his constituents should pay more for those services?

David Davies: I am very happy to tell my constituents that I would like them to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman tells his constituents something different.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says. I notice that people talk, sometimes very skilfully, about immigration without control. For the purposes of the discussion, does the hon. Gentleman include people from Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in his argument, or is he talking about people from non-EU countries? What would he say to those wonderful people from Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic who will soon be on the electoral register in his area? Will he tell them that he was criticising them and their worth? I want to know.

David Davies: Well, if I am, I will have to be careful because my wife is one of them. When people tell us that we should embrace our European partners, I can say that I do it most nights of the week when I am not in the House.
	My wife and the many Hungarians whom I know—I know most of them in my constituency because I am one of probably few Members of Parliament who have some grasp of the language—tell me that they, too, do not want unlimited, uncontrolled immigration because it affects their jobs and the way that people perceive them. That is why we need controls. I thought that it was probably okay to allow Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the European Union because their standards of living, although below ours, are not so far below that huge numbers of people could have been expected to leave permanently. The standards of living in Bulgaria and Romania are so far below even those of that recent tranche of EU members that people will have a strong financial incentive to leave in very large numbers indeed. This is not a matter of faith or culture; very often it is a matter of differences in standards of living.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend share my scepticism about Labour Members who complain about the attitude of Conservative Members to EU migrants when their Ministers' projection of the number of such migrants was out by a factor of 25? Does he also agree that it is not a badge of honour for our country that many people from EU countries are being exploited, live in poor housing, have poor educational attainment and are earning well below the minimum wage? That is not something to be proud of, for this Government or any other.

David Davies: It is very shameful. A case recently came to my attention concerning a young lady from Poland who had been exploited in a shocking fashion, and that sort of thing is widespread. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
	A number of parts of the Bill are well worth supporting in themselves even though they will not change anything, but even those are not all that they are cracked up to be. I am sure that the provision relating to automatic deportation will play very well in the tabloids, and Ministers will be hoping that all sorts of left-wing pressure groups jump up and condemn them so that, paradoxically, the Government will look rather good in the pages of the  Daily Mail, but as my Front-Bench colleagues have pointed out, the measure is not what it is cracked up to be.
	Why on earth should somebody have to be sentenced to 12 months in prison before they face the threat of automatic deportation? We all know that it is virtually impossible to get into a British prison these days. One has to do something very bad indeed as a first offence to be sentenced to more than 12 months in prison. I should be interested to know whether the 12 months relates to the sentence passed by the judge or the sentence that is actually served, which is of course usually a fraction of that passed by the judge.
	I put it to Labour Members that if somebody repeatedly breaks the law—by breaking into houses or cars, or shoplifting, for example—but does not get more than 12 months in prison, why on earth should they not face deportation? We heard earlier about the case of the Somali sex offender who had carried out one sex offence and been to prison, was released but not deported because somebody said that his human rights would be abused, and was then put back in prison having been convicted of another sexual offence. Presumably, the same people will be jumping up and down and bleating if there is any suggestion that he be sent back to Somalia, because of course it is a terribly dangerous place and he might come to some harm. Yet every single right-thinking person in this country is thinking to themselves that if it is a dangerous place and he will come to some harm there, that is the very reason he should be deported there as quickly as possible, instead of being left in the holiday camps that pass for prisons in this country these days.
	I ask the Minister again why, according to the Bill, somebody who assaults an immigration officer will face a maximum prison sentence of only 51 weeks. The message will go out to people involved in immigration cases that they can get away with assaulting immigration officers and, if they do so, they will not necessarily face the threat of deportation because they will not receive a prison sentence of more than one year.
	There is another issue that concerns me very much. It is not the fact that immigration officers are getting extra powers. Clearly that needs to happen, although it would be much better if they were being given these powers along with members of different police forces and we had a unified border security force, which at least two of the major political parties in the House are calling for. What worries me is the fact that this is likely to lead to yet another series of spurious claims against the IND, in addition to those currently being made, all funded by taxpayers' money.
	A year ago I was told that millions of pounds are being paid out by the IND as a result of spurious claims, and I refrained from making that statement because I thought that it would be best to try to check the facts. I tabled a written question last May and was told that I could not have an answer. I tabled another one in June and was told that somebody would write to me. Back in September or October somebody wrote to me and said that they would write to me with some details soon. I then tried the House of Commons Library, asking it how much money is being paid out in compensation claims to asylum seekers. I was told that the member of staff in the Library had been told by the IND that under no circumstances was it prepared to give those figures. I then started making freedom of information requests, and I was told that it would cost too much money to tell me how much money had been paid out in claims. I then made a freedom of information request to find out whether the Home Office had talked to the IND about any of my queries, and it looked as though it had, but it was not prepared to tell me about that either, for security reasons.
	I put it to the Minister that the Government are already paying out probably tens of millions of pounds in entirely bogus claims to asylum seekers who are probably claiming that their human rights have been breached because they have had to wait a couple of extra days or weeks for a ruling from the IND. I challenge the Minister, if that is not true, to tell us how much money has been paid out in claims to asylum seekers. I put it to her that, after one year of trying very hard, a Member of Parliament ought to have access to fairly basic information such as that.
	I finish by saying to Members of the House that I get rather tired of being called a fascist, a racist, a xenophobe and all the rest of it for simply pointing out that unlimited, uncontrolled immigration into this country is not a good thing. I remember that when I was dealing with the IND in a personal capacity, I went up to Birmingham one day with my wife, as I had done on a number of occasions, taking all my forms and the money in a brown envelope— [Interruption.] I did not get into this place as a result of that. The case officer I was dealing with, who had no idea that I was a Member of the Welsh Assembly, looked at me in surprise and said, "Do you know, I don't meet many people like you."  [Laughter.] I walked into that. The case officer said that he had never met anyone who had gone so far out of their way to obey the rules. He said, "You are very definitely in a minority." My fear is that people such as me, my wife and other immigrants to this country who obey the rules will continue to be in a minority and this Bill will change absolutely nothing.

Jon Cruddas: I am not sure how to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), but I found it thoroughly enjoyable, although he gave us a bit too much information, as Mrs. Davies might agree.
	Many of the ideas in the Bill are rational, as the Government are seeking to restore the integrity of the system, and many of the ideas come from the work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I welcome the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), and agree with many of the points that they raised. I shall deal with a couple of aspects of the Bill, and particularly the consequences of clauses 23 and 24, which seek to clamp down on the employment of illegal workers.
	At the outset, I should state that it is correct to clamp down on employers who abuse migrant labour, because shocking stories of such abuse abound in every constituency. Later I shall mention a couple of cases of such abuses that I have been told about in my constituency. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, I am concerned about the effects of the clauses on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
	Section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 introduced a new offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker, and it provided associated powers to obtain a warrant to enter and search premises to arrest an individual. Clause 23 introduces an express power of arrest, and clause 24 puts in place a new regime of penalties for knowingly employing an illegal worker. It also introduces an express power to search a firm's personnel records. On the face of it, the clauses might help to stop the abuse of people at work.
	Overall, the Government's strategy is pretty clear: there is the general "fit for purpose" review of the Home Office, the introduction of the points-based migration system and the introduction of ID cards; also, the tough language of clampdowns is used when migration is discussed. Now, the Government are bearing down ever more systematically on those employing unregularised migrants. In general, we are witnessing a total overhaul of the immigration system, not least because the subject tops people's concerns in poll after poll on their overall priorities for Government activity. The clauses are the next pieces to be put on the board in the overhaul of the Home Office.
	The obvious question is why the problem was not dealt with before. Presumably, the answer lies in the Home Office's history of chaos, but I posit that there might also be something to the idea that in the past a blind eye was turned to tacit illegal employment. That is partially accounted for by the fact that migrant labour is seen as a key element in building our north America-style flexible labour markets. I have travelled around the country a fair bit in the past couple of months, and I have seen case after case of appalling abuse of migrant labour. There is no doubt that the issue resonates and touches raw nerves in many communities. It is almost the outstanding issue for public policy debate, so I welcome the initiatives in the Bill to regularise some of the employment of illegal workers.
	In my community, I use the same three examples time and again to demonstrate the way in which illegal migrants have pushed down local pay rates, have been chronically abused by landlords, and are being employed at less than the minimum wage. I came across all three case studies on the same day. The first concerned one of a gang of Lithuanian migrants who were employed under a public contract for £15 a day. The second case involved a roofer who came to see me, who said that his hourly pay rate had fallen by £2.50 in the preceding six months. The third case concerned a bloke who had put an oven in his shed and hired it out, so that a gang of east European migrant workers could hot-bed it at the bottom of his garden. Those are little stories that resonate across the country, and everyone has their own local examples of such chronic abuses by employers of some of the most abused workers in the country. I therefore understand the Government's objectives in introducing the measures.
	However, it is difficult to get a clear, empirical picture of the patterns and the effects of migration in this country. The Office for National Statistics estimates that the total population was in the order of 60.2 million for 2005, and that has gone up by 375,000, net. Some 235,000 of that increase is made up by net migration. Alongside that, it is a commonly accepted statistic that there are about 600,000 A8 nationals. As was mentioned earlier, there were some 450,000 failed applications for asylum, and that figure does not include the dependants. In any analysis of the effects of illegal migration, we should add people who are trafficked, overstayers and students who are still in the system.
	Earlier today, I referred to the Greater London authority's estimate that there are 320,000 unregularised migrants in London alone. That figure, too, does not include dependants. My borough in east London has a total population of 174,000, so if we accept the figure of 320,000, it means that there are enough people with no formal status in the city to make up a large London borough. Many of those people are the most exploited in our society. They are abused by employers, landlords—every MP in the country will have countless stories of such abuses in their constituency—and criminals. We have many local examples of crime in which no comeback is provided by the authorities, because the migrant's status is so ambiguous. They are therefore preyed on by criminal gangs. That is the right background against which to consider the consequences of clauses 23 and 24.
	In London, the obvious consequence of bearing down on employers who abuse migrant workers who have no status in this country will be to push tens of thousands of workers out of their illegal work. Many of those workers have been here for years, and many have dependants. One could argue that the city is dependent on migrant flows of labour. No one knows how many people would be affected, but arguably tens of thousands of people in London would be turfed out of work. How those people will survive remains a mystery to me. I see many cases involving people—and their children—who have no status in this country and who have been here for many years, just as my hon. Friend said about his constituency of Walthamstow, which is down the road from mine. Those people may be barely surviving at subsistence level, because they work illegally at very low rates of pay.
	Will the Bill deal with just one part of the problem—illegal working—while creating another problem for councils and public policy makers, across the country but especially in poorer urban communities, which bear a disproportionate strain as a result of the migration of illegal groups? Many people do not have a visible work profile because of their illegality. Will a consequence of the Bill be to force people out of the shadows, through sheer destitution? Is it not time to address the issue of people who are already here, but who are undocumented? Deportation will not be a remedy if literally tens of thousands of people are to be turfed out of work, to appear on the radar of public policy makers.

Stewart Jackson: I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I hope that that does not have too negative an effect on his deputy leadership campaign; I wish him well with that. Does he agree that the problem to which he alludes is partly caused by the great deal of time that it has taken the Government to look again at the Office for National Statistics and the measurement of legal and illegal immigration, if it is possible to measure the latter? Unfortunately, the burden of taking proactive action has fallen on a small number of local authorities, including the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, authorities in Slough, and Peterborough city council. They have pushed the Government into setting up, through the ONS, a migration work force study, but that should have been done many months, if not years, ago.

Jon Cruddas: I totally agree with that. That was an element of the Queen's Speech debate on the future of the ONS and the acceptance that it does not carry out a rigorous analysis of the population and the demographics of the country. That is especially the case in urban environments because of the sheer velocity of change in many communities—change that has taken place off the radar of public policy makers because it has occurred since the census data of 2001. That is also especially true in communities such as mine, where we have the lowest-cost housing market in Greater London. That has served as a sort of magnetic pull to migrants into London and within London in search of low-cost housing.
	I take the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). My point is whether the Bill, as part of an overall overhaul of the Home Office, will simply serve to compound the exploitation of these groups of people who have been around the system for many years and who will not be taken out of the country, not least because the unit cost is so high and because there are thousands of them. If there are 320,000 such people in London and if the Bill does what it seeks to do, tens of thousands of people will turn up on the public radar in abject and desperate need of help. We will not remove them from the country; therefore we need an adequate public policy response in anticipation of those consequences of the Bill. Surely that is not too much to ask.
	The matter should be adequately addressed through a wider debate around the consequences of clauses 23 and 24. I fear that, if we do not do that, we might well be building a major series of social problems for ourselves as, through sheer destitution, those who currently have no visibility are forced into the public realm. We should acknowledge the consequences of that as we discuss the Bill.

Stewart Jackson: I am conscious as I begin my remarks that I am in the presence of the hon. Members for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), both of whom have had issues around the growth of the extremist and racist politics of the British National party. An unfortunate aspect of my election to Parliament on 5 May 2005 was that a candidate standing for "National Front—Britons Not Refugees" polled 931 votes in the Peterborough constituency. None of us here should have any truck with the racists and extremists of the right or give them any credibility.
	The Bill is a sort of reverse curate's egg; it is generally quite good, but bad in parts. There are some aspects on which all Conservative Members could agree. We agree with the five-year plan established in 2005 that proposes a points-based scheme. I am delighted to see that the Government have adopted a Conservative policy, one which we expounded at the 2005 general election.
	I am disappointed in many aspects, such as ID cards and the fact that, as Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen have said, we do not have a consolidated Bill to consolidate all six previous Bills of the last nine years. We do not have an integrated borders agency, and the Minister did not make the case as to why that was.
	I agree with much that the hon. Member for Dagenham said, which brought back an experience I had a few months ago when I went out with regulatory authorities, including the police and trading standards officers, in the central ward of my constituency, which is approximately 70 per cent Kashmiri. I went into a restaurant and in the basement was a room full of about 14 bunks, as well as rosaries and candles. They belonged to people on the very margins of society— Polish immigrants who were being paid a pittance to be picked up in white vans and taken to pick vegetables in south Lincolnshire. Those exploited people are the by-products of a system that is not working, over which the Government have presided.
	The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who is not in his place, said that there was an element of overreaction to tabloid pressure in this Bill. It is reactive and hasty and driven by a media agenda, and essentially, it fails to protect our borders. Most importantly, it fails to meet the Home Secretary's undertakings, prior to the foreign prisoners debacle last May, that the system would be simplified, especially in the case of any new legislation.
	The Bill does not do anything to rectify permanently the systemic failures in the Home Office, and ignores key challenges in existing legislation that will militate against the effectiveness of the legislation. I referred earlier to the Human Rights Act and to the European convention on human rights. I am afraid that I received an unsatisfactory reply from the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality who, uncharacteristically, made a partisan point about previous election campaigns. I was not talking about that; I was talking about the operation of the new Bill.
	The Bill is complicated and smacks of authoritarian gimmickry. We must look at it in the context of the Government's record. Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be partisan: it is a shambolic record, which has delivered the foreign prisoners debacle. One hundred and twenty-nine of the original 1,023 identified by the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) in April last year have been deported, 79 of whom had committed serious offences.
	I have a personal interest in the issue. I have a category B prison in my constituency, HMP Peterborough. On 29 April, I asked a named-day written question to find out how many prisoners were released in the 12 months to 31 March 2006 from Peterborough prison. It was not a difficult question; it was not technical and would not require huge manpower or resources to find the answer. I got the answer eight months later after tackling the Prime Minister on 11 October at Prime Minister's questions, raising two points of order with the Speaker and tabling several more questions to Home Office Ministers. That is unacceptable. In pursuit of my proper business—holding the Executive to account on something straightforward—all I got was a blank wall and obfuscation from the Home Office about an issue of concern to my constituents.
	There is a postscript. We have now learnt that 55 prisoners were released and the Home Office is now refusing to tell me what they were convicted of, because to do so would incur disproportionate cost. Again, that is unacceptable. I do not blame the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), but I will be in correspondence with her colleagues on the issue.
	The specialist team that was set up to track down these foreign prisoners closed down last June for no reason. In the media, if not necessarily in this House, the Home Secretary said that prisoners from outside the EU should be bribed with £2,500 of public money—money that my hardworking families in Peterborough have contributed to the Exchequer—to go home. What sort of system is that?
	The cost of the IND to the Exchequer went from £300 million in 1999 to £1.9 billion in 2004 and it is still projected that, within the next two fiscal years, the figure will be £1.5 billion. It is a good thing that staff there are not getting performance-related pay, as it has been a shambles and a disaster.
	Since 1997 about 375,000 asylum seekers have entered the United Kingdom. We have confirmation that only 85,000 have left. Those figures are from the Home Office. Even as recently as the third quarter of last year, we learned that the number of removals of asylum seekers had dropped by 28 per cent. Despite the Government's rhetoric, the macho posturing of the Home Secretary and his undertaking to deal with the issue and to get tough—he said that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the people—that did not happen. Unfortunately, like many of the Prime Minister's promises, that promise was broken.
	Between 430,000 and 870,000 illegal immigrants—the Government do not know the number—have settled in the United Kingdom in the past eight years. That brings me to the point that I raised in an intervention with respect to EU migrants. I accept that that is not strictly covered by the Bill, but such wrong-headedness, a projection that was so way out, does not inspire one with confidence in Home Office projections. There has been a particularly negative effect on community cohesion issues in my constituency, not necessarily affecting white Anglo-Saxon Protestant residents, but affecting the established Kashmiri-Pakistani community which has been in Peterborough since the 1960s and 1970s.
	I am proud to be the Member of Parliament for a diverse constituency where we speak 93 languages and get on extremely well. Two years ago one of our councillors from Kashmir had the honour to be the city mayor. The fact that he was a Conservative was a bonus. The Central ward is represented by three Pakistani Conservative councillors. The reason I feel passionate about these matters is that I do not want to give an opening to the racists to foment trouble. The United Kingdom Independence party is in many respects on the fringes of that debate. It is the respectable side of the British National party.
	Intolerable stress has been placed on housing, with families of 14 or 16 living in a small terraced house. Unscrupulous landlords have been buying up almost entire streets in an established area in the city centre. Primary care services have been under massive pressure, and we have had huge problems at our local primary schools with children whose first language is not English. We have not had the funding to deal with those issues and reassure people that migration is controlled and that they need not worry about people with different languages and cultures. That is the problem.
	I am conscious that others want to speak, so I shall end with my two specific concerns about the Bill. Clauses 28 to 35 deal with deportation. I made the point to the Minister earlier about the Human Rights Act 1998, but he dismissed it. The cliché about the elephant in the room seems appropriate. If we do not consider the interpretation and the ramifications of the Human Rights Act and realise that it will be used, or abused, by those who should not use it, we will not reach the objectives of the Bill in respect of deportation.
	I understand that the provision derives from the Chahal decision of 1996 and the European convention on human rights, but it is foolish to include in the Bill clauses that solidify a legalistic loophole. That will lead to obfuscation, delay and frustration in the system. Even if the Bill becomes law, the powers will be too lax. I referred earlier to the operational enforcement manual, which concedes that judges can only be advised in respect of determination—it is not part of the law at present. That is a mistake.
	There are 9,651 foreign prisoners in UK prisons, up from 4,677 in 1997. Against that background and the problems that we will have dealing with them in future, I asked the Minister some specific questions, which I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to answer. Why do we still not collect statistics on those who have been recommended for deportation and those who are actually deported? That, as far as I know, is the current situation. Members of Parliament are regularly told that that information is not collected centrally.
	Why is the court in effect required to subordinate the national interest to so-called human rights? Why is there not an automatic presumption in favour of deportation following serious criminal behaviour? People are not sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment or more for not paying their TV licence. Violence, sexual offences and drug offences come to mind in relation to such a sentence. Why are central records not kept on the immigration status of all those in the prison estate who have been convicted? I do not see the point of another Bill if previous Acts are not adhered to. Why is the Home Secretary not able to use the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to deport criminals? The Act allows the Government to do so.
	The second issue of concern is biometric immigration documents. In a good intervention, the hon. Member for Walthamstow sought reassurance, as do I. The measure smacks of sleight of hand with regard to ID cards—function creep, one might call it. It seeks to embed the concept of ID cards, which may be voluntary in a few years, in the public psyche, using immigration control and the so-called war against terror as the rationale. It is not right for the House to accept that rationale and the construction of an ID database under that cover. If the raison d'être of the proposal and the clauses is to deal with illegal working, why have the Government not made more use of the relevant existing legislation—the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996?
	Finally, the Bill contains much that I would support if it were enacted, but there is a long way to go to repair the damage done to the security of the country by the Government's open-door immigration policy over the past 10 years. The Bill is 10 years too late. The public, sadly, do not believe a word the Government say about immigration. That is a testament to the culture of spin and obfuscation. It all began back in 1997 with the decision to rescind the bilateral agreement with France. That was followed by Sangatte and the green light, and the process has continued ever since. I hope the Bill will go some way towards ameliorating the calamitous series of policy failures, but only a Conservative Government will have the political will and the nous to protect our borders and our people.

Ann Cryer: I welcome the Second Reading of the UK Borders Bill, especially the aspects of it that deal with illegal immigrants and with human trafficking. I also welcome the setting up of the new centre in Sheffield to deal with trafficking, and the changes in the law that will enable prosecutions to take place regardless of whether the act of human trafficking has taken place inside or outside the UK, and irrespective of the nationality of the person carrying out the act. I trust that those measures will lead to a marked reduction in the sum total of human misery perpetuated frequently on vulnerable women and children.
	There is some disquiet about the availability of free health care to those who have not contributed to the costs of the health service. A solution could be found by introducing a requirement for those entering this country, or their sponsors, to purchase private health insurance as a prerequisite for the granting of an entry clearance visa and until indefinite leave to remain is granted. Most UK citizens would not travel abroad without such cover.
	The reintroduction in the Bill of exit or embarkation controls, year by year, until everyone is counted in and counted out, will certainly help us to determine the future demands on our health, education and social services. As an old-fashioned socialist and a believer in a planned economy, I have never been able to understand the attraction of an open-door policy. To plan future provision in education, health and so on, we must have some idea of how many we are catering for at any given time. This is another good reason for the introduction of ID cards. They will not defeat terrorism, but they will give us a more accurate idea of how many citizens will need the different kinds of provision in the coming years, and even of how many will not be entitled to it.
	I would like to mention yet again the need for a specific criminal offence of forcing to marry, which is a way round immigration control that is both cruel and un-Islamic. The forced marriages unit has confirmed that, to date, no one has been prosecuted under current legislation. Despite the increased awareness of forced marriage, the number of cases increases. This might be attributable to the demographics involved—a relatively youthful population reaching marriageable age. Sending the right message—that forced marriage is both illegal and un-Islamic—would have a powerful deterrent effect.

Kerry McCarthy: My hon. Friend mentioned that the practice of forced marriage was un-Islamic. Does she agree that it is not only an issue for the Muslim community, and that forced marriage is just as much of a problem in other communities and faith groups? Would it not be wrong to single out the Muslim community in this context?

Ann Cryer: In my constituency, I have Bangladeshis and Pakistanis who are all Muslims. I accept that the practice goes on outside the Muslim community, but I do not have any experience of that. My experience involves dealing mainly with the dreadful plight of young Muslim women.

Graham Stuart: Given the cross-party concern about this issue, does the hon. Lady have any idea why the Government have consistently turned their face against taking any real action? I hope that she can offer an explanation other than that of mere electoral advantage.

Ann Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. The Government have done a great deal in relation to this practice. We now have the forced marriages unit, which helps about 350 girls a year—plus some men—to avoid or to find their way round the practice of forced marriage. That work is carrying on apace. I am disappointed, however, that we do not have a specific criminal offence of forced marriage. A Member of the other place—I am sorry, but I cannot remember his name—introduced a private Member's Bill the other week to establish a civil offence of forcing to marry. The Bill was given a Second Reading.
	Sending the right message—that forced marriage is both illegal and un-Islamic—would have a powerful deterrent effect, which would be welcomed by the many young men and women in our northern towns and cities who, I suggest, form the silent majority. There are few, if any, prosecutions for not wearing a seat belt, but that does not detract from the usefulness and effectiveness of the legislation involved, which has altered behaviour. Could this apply to a criminal offence of forcing to marry? It is a crime against humanity, and therefore merits its own criminal offence. Is our failing to do anything about it therefore tantamount to passive acceptance?

Angela Watkinson: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her tenacity in dealing with this ongoing problem, not only in her constituency but nationwide. Does she accept, however, that, among many of the faith communities, arranged marriages are often very successful? In those circumstances, young people are introduced but there is no coercion to marry. It is left up to the young people to decide whether they could have a happy life together. Does she agree that that kind of halfway house might provide a way for us to make inroads into preventing forced marriages, by offering it as an acceptable cultural alternative?

Ann Cryer: There is absolutely nothing wrong with arranged marriages. I have many friends who have gone through that procedure very successfully. Dare I suggest that an arranged marriage is probably preferable to our own way of doing things: going down to a disco, picking up a girl or a boy and seeing what happens? However, I am not talking about arranged marriages here; I am talking about forced marriages, which are quite different. The many girls in my constituency whom I have helped can easily identify the difference between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage.
	I appeal for an addition to the Bill—or for secondary legislation—that would raise the age limit from 18 to 21 for sponsors and applicants for permanent settlement as a spouse. Such a change would allow individuals to make a more mature choice and would permit young people to complete further and higher education without the threat of a marriage. Such an increase has been adopted in Denmark and, as far as we know, there has been no negative press, despite the increase being to the age of 24. The change might indirectly encourage more marriage within the settled community, as people might choose to marry someone they knew here rather than waiting for someone unknown and possibly unsuitable.
	I should also like to appeal for changes that would require the obtaining of citizenship before sponsorship of a spouse. This would give an extra meaning to citizenship. On arrival in this country, Commonwealth citizens are already allowed to vote, and they can claim benefits on receipt of indefinite leave to remain. Why, therefore, should they seek citizenship? This change would ensure that marriages being used as vehicles to get round the immigration rules would be challenged. At present, someone getting a divorce after obtaining ILR would be allowed a new settlement application from a new spouse. In theory, one person could marry and divorce four times in a 10-year period. The additional years that it would take to obtain citizenship would, I hope, increase the applicant's knowledge of English and their involvement in society, resulting in greater integration and cohesion.
	May I also suggest that we encourage the learning of English prior to granting someone entry clearance as a spouse, for work or as a student? Applicants should be required to take a test in limited basic English before being granted entry. For example, English for Speakers of Other Languages—ESOL—Skills for Life level 1 offers a minimum standard. That should be followed by an undertaking to participate in English and citizenship classes during the two-year probationary period for ILR. The Dutch have a similar system, and insist on the speaking of Dutch as a prerequisite for ILR. Other countries are moving in a similar direction.
	Such a provision could be encouraged through international development, especially for girls. If people wanted their daughters to reap the economic benefits of the UK, they would need to ensure that they were sufficiently educated to speak English before they could obtain ILR. When a woman understands English, she also understands her rights. That is an important factor for many women in my constituency. Failure to reach the required standard of English must lead to the withholding of ILR and even deportation; otherwise, the condition will have no effect.
	Such conditions should not and must not apply to asylum seekers, who normally need no encouragement to learn English and improve themselves. I recognise that there will be a requirement for English prior to ILR from April. However, is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied with the quality and quantity of ESOL teaching in areas such as Bradford, and with the testing of the applicants? I am not happy about that; a great hole needs to be filled through the teaching of English as a second language. We are falling well short at the moment.
	I understand that the number of such people learning English at the moment is going down, rather than up, so we have real problems. I hate to think of people being deported because they do not have English, when there has been no one there to teach them English.

Stewart Hosie: I welcome a number of items in the Bill. When it was published, the Minister laid out in a press statement a number of additional proposed powers for immigration officers: to arrest people smugglers or traffickers, which is to be welcomed; to detain at ports those whom they suspect of having committed a crime; and to arrest those believed to have been fraudulently acquiring asylum support, which is also to be welcomed.
	The Minister also said that there should be access to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs data to track down illegal immigrants. I have a brief question about that. I can certainly see the appeal of accessing HMRC data. I wonder, however, whether there is not an issue about the use of such data, in conjunction with all the other biometric and non-biometric data held on the central database, for a purpose that was not provided for. I am sure that the issue will be subject to detailed scrutiny at a later stage. I certainly hope that it will be.
	However, I come back to the guts of the issue. I was surprised, as were many journalists, that the powers proposed were not already in place. It seemed extraordinary that immigration officers did not have the power to arrest people smugglers or even to detain those whom they believed may have committed a crime. It was even more extraordinary given that since Labour came to power in 1997 there have been immigration Acts plus various crime Acts and terrorism Acts almost every year—the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the measures taken in 2004 and 2006.
	The problems of illegal immigration and, in particular, people trafficking are not new. In June 2000, following the deaths of 58 people in the back of a refrigerated wagon, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), said that discussions were ongoing about improving port security. In January 2002, another Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), announced that the maximum jail sentence for people traffickers would increase to 14 years. In 2002, during the Sangatte crisis, the Prime Minister said that Navy ships would intercept people traffickers, as long as they were not in the channel tunnel, when we would need submarines—actually, he did not say that last bit. By 2003, the BBC reported that a senior Metropolitan police officer had warned of a growing threat, and by April last year, the Prime Minister announced that Serious Organised Crime Agency law enforcement officers would target people traffickers.
	After all that—and such things were happening almost daily—we found that the powers to detain and arrest did not exist. I welcome those powers. However, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) mentioned an anomaly, which the Law Society of Scotland has laid out clearly. It asked why, notwithstanding the non-application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in Scotland, immigration officers should not have the power of detention. It went on to ask why clause 21, which relates to the forfeiture of detained property, applies only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	I do not support unified or uniform legislation for the sake of it; I would prefer that the entire immigration and border control regime were devolved to Scotland. However, in this instance, when we are taking border security extremely seriously, there is a real question.

Liam Byrne: rose—

Stewart Hosie: The Minister can intervene once I have asked my questions. I listened carefully to what he said earlier about having a working solution agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
	My difficulty has two parts. First, a working solution must be within existing legislation, which requires a police officer. An immigration officer cannot detain without a police officer, so there is no change at all. Secondly, the Minister mentioned the seven international ports, but there are hundreds of ports, airports and harbours where people can land, leave and enter, from Eyemouth right around the mainland close to Kirkcubright and on every inhabited and many uninhabited islands. So how will that working solution work? Will there be any change that would mean that immigration officers could detain without a police officer, other than in pursuance of existing immigration law?

Liam Byrne: I hope that we shall have that debate at some length in Committee. However, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I will summarise the advice that I have been given about how colleagues from the Scottish Executive who have written to me propose to solve the problem. They have discussed the remedy that I mentioned earlier with ACPO Scotland and taken into account the number of international facilities in Scotland. The House will forgive me if I am not able to present the precise policy and legal guidance that officials have presented to me; that would cause them difficulty under their rules about advice to Ministers. However, I shall present to the Library the summary that I can give.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Minister for that. I look forward to reading it. I can imagine the conversation with Scottish Executive Ministers with less than three months until the election—"Oh no, it's a nationalist issue. Don't touch it!", although I am sure that it was slightly more detailed than that.
	The Bill also includes the introduction of biometric identity cards for a class of people. Let me return for a moment to the debate on identity cards proper. The London School of Economics identity project report of June 2005 has been much quoted, particularly in respect of the costs and practicality of the Identity Cards Act 2006, to which I turn to emphasise a point about this Bill. Chapter 10 of the report, entitled "Race, Discrimination, Immigration and Policing", stated:
	"Throughout the world, identity cards are associated with discrimination ... individuals may be compelled to produce those cards ... In every country that grants this power to their police, questions inevitably arise as to whether this power is used ... disproportionately, against immigrants, minorities, or other selected groups."
	It states that the then Identity Cards Bill
	"does not grant police the power to compel production."
	However, there is a real concern that this Bill may grant powers not only to the police but to others, authorised and possibly non-authorised. Clause 5(1)(b) states that regulations—not primary legislation—could require
	"a biometric immigration document to be used...in specified circumstances, where a question arises about a person's status in relation to nationality or immigration".
	The Library briefing states:
	"This could potentially be very wide, covering for example: employment; access to benefits, NHS healthcare"
	and so on. Is that not a de facto requirement or compulsion? I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that. We could combine that information with the concerns raised in the Liberty briefing provided for this debate, which said:
	"In September 2004,  The Guardian...ran a story claiming that in the previous 15 months, 235 operations had been conducted adding 'The figures showed that those arrested included 717 failed asylum seekers but thousands more people have been stopped and questioned by immigration staff using powers which the police are banned from using.'...The creation of the biometric immigration document has the potential to be racially divisive."
	That raises the real question, asked by right hon. and hon. Members from all parties in previous debates, about a return to a de facto stop-and-search regime.

Liam Byrne: indicated dissent.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister is shaking his head, and I was pleased when he explained earlier that that was not the case. However, when one reads the words in the Bill, there appears to be the potential at least—particularly if regulations are drafted widely rather than tightly—for that to be a real fear.
	Perversely, the issue of a Government biometric ID card may be seen by some as validating a false identity. As I have said in previous debates, at present people arrive in the UK with fake, forged or stolen identities sufficiently robust to get in. That may well happen in future, but those fake, false or stolen identities will be turned into valid ones through the issue of a UK Government biometric card. We also know that many people who arrive here destroy their own, sometimes valid, documents and papers en route. I am concerned that the expectation of receiving a UK biometric identity card may encourage more people to do that, making the action of tracing people who are here legally or illegally all the more difficult.
	Finally, I have some anxiety about the implementation of the scheme, not least because although the Office for National Statistics says that 4 million non-EU citizens have migrated to the UK since 1995, the accurate figure of those who have stayed is almost certainly incalculable. Although clause 5(2)(a) envisages a gradual roll-out for those staying more than three months, and then only on application to extend their stay, we know that the re-application period depends on the type of visa and may not be complete until two, three or four years after people arrive. There is a danger that we will end up with a two-tier system, with those who are here legally re-applying and having the biometric document, and those who are here legally but who do not have the biometric document. We could have a three-tier system, because of the problem of dealing with those who are hiding or cannot be traced.
	I hope that the Minister can comment on the powers for immigration officers not being applicable to Scotland; on the reasons for the difference in forfeiture between Scotland and England; on the assurances given on the compulsory use of the biometric ID card; on the risk assessment of whether the biometric card can be seen as a validation of a fake ID for people who come here; and on the costs and time scales for the implementation of the system.

Kerry McCarthy: I represent a constituency with a high number of what are generically referred to as asylum seekers, although some of them might be refugees who have been granted leave to remain in this country because of the risk of persecution in their homeland. Many of those have become British citizens or are here as EU citizens, having come over from the Netherlands or Denmark, for instance. I am told that there are about 500 or so actual asylum seekers in Bristol, by which I mean those people who are waiting for their claims to be determined. However, many more are failed asylum seekers who have had their initial claims rejected. They are going through the appeals process or have—this applies to many of them—exhausted all legal avenues. In theory, they are waiting to be deported, but the practicality, in my constituency at least, is that because many hail from Somalia, there are problems with deporting them because of the difficult circumstances in that country. As such, many of them are likely to remain in this country for years to come.
	That is the context of my comments. My constituency in the city of Bristol, like the constituencies of many hon. Members in the Chamber, has seen the arrival of new migrant workers, but I want to talk about the impact of what are generically referred to as asylum seekers. Before I make more detailed points, however, I want to make it clear that it is my passionate belief that Bristol has benefited hugely from the contribution made by its various immigrant communities over the years, including those who have arrived here seeking asylum. I did not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies). He seemed to think that Huguenots, Jews and people from Uganda were okay. I would flag up the Irish community, people who have come down from Scotland, Afro-Caribbean communities, Somali communities, Pakistani-Kashmiri communities and Indian communities as communities that have all settled well in Bristol and contribute to life there. That is why I pressed him on the point and tried to get out of him exactly who was causing so much trouble in his area.
	Businesses in my constituency have told me that they would be unable to fill job vacancies were it not for the arrival of fairly significant numbers of people from Somalia and, more recently, eastern European migrant workers. Although unemployment in Bristol is low by recent historical standards, their comments raise interesting questions about the skills levels and the employability of the long-term unemployed who do not come from those groups, but that is probably a subject for another day.
	When I have visited schools in my constituency, I have met children from refugee and migrant communities, some of whom did not speak a word of English before they started school—indeed, some had never set foot in a classroom before. I have seen how well they have adapted to life here and how fluent they have become in the English language after only a few months in the city. They are to be commended for that. It is indicative that the city academy in my constituency, which has a high proportion of refugees, asylum seekers and children of migrant workers among its pupils, recently made it into the top 100 schools in the country in the contextual value added tables. That shows just how much these children can overcome. Having gone through horrendous experiences in their countries, they can achieve a huge amount in a small time, given the right support.
	I am proud of the way in which Bristol and my constituency in particular, which contains the most diverse areas of the city, have coped with the changes over recent years. Areas that were predominantly white until the last decade or so are now much more diverse, but peaceful co-existence is the rule rather than the exception. I was at the launch a few weeks ago of the Bob Woodward centre in Eastville, which is one of five community cohesion centres that are being piloted across the country. The aim is to bring different communities together under one roof and to foster co-operation and co-working. That is surely the way forward.

Graham Stuart: I am listening with interest to how the hon. Lady's argument is developing. Is she saying that this country could cope with a much greater level of immigration than we have had in recent years?

Kerry McCarthy: It very much depends on how we would handle that. I accept that we need controls on immigration, but in some cases there is an economic need to allow in more migrant workers, particularly skilled migrant workers, on which the Government have already legislated. For those people who come here seeking asylum, we have a humanitarian duty to give them refuge. It is not a numbers game; it is a moral case.
	It would be foolish to present a completely rose-tinted picture of what community relations are like in Bristol. Although I believe that the vast majority of people in the city are sympathetic to the needs of genuine refugees and have given them great support, there is undeniably resentment and tension, especially in some of the white working-class areas of my constituency where a serious shortage of affordable housing, pressure on public services, and competition for regeneration funding and even for fairly small pots of money can cause tension. Some people in those communities feel that their needs have been overlooked. That is why I welcome the Bill. It is important that we reassure people that the asylum and immigration system is not a free-for-all and is based on genuine need, whether it be the need of asylum seekers for a safe haven from persecution or our economic need for migrant workers. It is in the interests of all the genuine asylum seekers in my constituency and the migrant workers who have filled the jobs that could not otherwise have been filled that we make it clear that Britain does not and will not tolerate abuse of its asylum and immigration system. I welcome the Bill as another step in tightening up our laws.
	I want to focus on a couple of measures. The introduction of biometric registration and identity cards will give us a means of identifying who a person is, what their immigration status is and whether they are entitled to work or to access state benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and others said that that will not only help us to identify those who are not entitled to be here or to claim benefits, but will also help those who are entitled to those things.
	I regularly deal with constituents who have leave to remain in this country and are entitled to work but who have a hard time convincing employers of that fact. The Royal Mail, for example, refuses to use the immigration and nationality directorate's employers hotline and insists that employees produce a new letter from the Home Office every 13 weeks, which harks back to the infamous 13-weeks letters that people used to get, telling them when their case would be dealt with. Every 13 weeks constituents come to me requiring another letter that they can show to the Royal Mail confirming their eligibility to work. I would welcome anything that makes life easier for them.
	I have also dealt with a number of cases of mistaken identity. For example, people at the tax credits office have confused constituents of mine with people with similar names and the same date of birth, and they have demanded the return of overpayments from them. Again, that could be solved if they had an identity card. It took the best part of a year to convince the office that it was pursuing the wrong person, so I very much welcome that aspect of the Bill.
	The other part of the Bill that I want to discuss deals with foreign prisoners, and introduces the assumption of automatic deportation for those who have been sentenced to 12 months or more in custody. It is with some trepidation that I raise the issue, given its sensitivity, but both the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and the hon. Member for Monmouth mentioned the case of the Somali man who last week was convicted of a very serious sexual assault on a seven-year-old girl. He happens to be a constituent of mine, and the assault was made on another constituent of mine in the Barton Hill area of my constituency. The case raises a huge number of complex issues. I certainly would not say that I have the answer to the question of how we should deal with someone in that position, but it is worth airing some of the issues that it raises.
	The man in question, Sadiq Mohammed, is of Somali descent. He arrived in the United Kingdom in 1994, and after claiming asylum was given indefinite leave to remain. In 2000 he was convicted of several assaults on women, including one on a 14-year-old girl—although I believe in that case the charge was only one of common assault, nowhere near as serious as the most recent assault. Deportation was recommended, but, although not all the facts have emerged, we know that it was not carried out. I suspect that that was either because Mohammed had already been given indefinite leave to remain, or because of the continuing instability in Somalia.
	Mohammed served two years of his four-year sentence. Several years after his release, he carried out the appalling attack on the seven-year-old. Thankfully he was caught and has now been given an indeterminate sentence, but the question of whether he should now be deported has been raised by many of my constituents. Although there is no doubt that he is of Somali descent, it is now being suggested that he may be a Kenyan national who has never set foot in Somalia, and who claimed asylum on false pretences. Before Opposition Members try to use that against us, I should say that I gather his original claim was made before Labour came to office. In any event, many of my constituents believe that even if he were returned to Somalia, whatever risk of persecution or torture he might run as a result of deportation, by carrying out that appalling attack he has surrendered any claim to our compassion. Quite simply, they do not care what happens to him in Somalia or any other country to which he might be sent. They just want to ensure that he is never again free to walk the streets of Barton Hill.
	I should add that those who are calling most vociferously for Mohammed's deportation are members of the Somali community. That may be because the victim was a Somali child, but they have told me that, as refugees themselves, they feel that he has abused the hospitality of this country and that his presence here should no longer be tolerated.
	As I have said, the case is complex. As someone who has been accepted as a refugee, Mohammed has rights under the European convention on human rights and the Geneva convention, but I understand that even under current legislation, those rights can be overridden in the case of someone who has been convicted of a serious offence if he is considered to present a clear and grave danger to the community. Mohammed may therefore be eligible for deportation. I should welcome clarification of that point.
	I should also welcome clarification of what will happen to people who have been given indeterminate sentences. At what stage of their sentences will deportation be considered? The Minister has expressed the view that people should be deported as early in their sentences as possible, but there is a very high risk that Mohammed will reoffend—he had already carried out a series of attacks before the most recent assault—and the effects on any future victim would last a lifetime. How can we ensure that we do not merely export the problem?
	Obviously, as a constituency Member I feel that my priority is the welfare of the children living in my constituency, but if it is decided to deport Mohammed early in his sentence, who knows whether he will be allowed to walk the streets of Somalia, Kenya or wherever else he may be sent? Do we wash our hands of such people when they are deported, or do we still have a moral obligation to try to minimise the risk of their posing a risk to children elsewhere? People who had received lengthy prison sentences for, say, drug offences or serious violence would not be so obviously a risk to the community to which they were being sent. In cases in which children are the victims, we need to ask ourselves some serious questions.
	I welcome the Bill. I think that it will help to implement some of the measures that we have discussed to create a firmer, fairer asylum and immigration system. However, I should like some clarification of how it will affect people in my constituent's position.

Angela Watkinson: I apologise for having left the Chamber in the middle of the debate to attend an unavoidable meeting. I was particularly disappointed to miss the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson).
	The Bill could have been used to simplify and consolidate existing legislation. In his opening remarks the Minister said that there would be a consolidation Bill next year. If only this were it. There seems to be a great deal of consensus and good will across the Chamber about the need to introduce more robust but fair immigration legislation, and we must all work hard together to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
	The Bill is the fourth piece of legislation extending immigration officer powers since the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It attempts to improve the mechanics of immigration without addressing the question of the level of immigration that will benefit the country while taking account of the labour market, public services and environmental and infrastructure issues. Parliament should hold a proper debate about demographics—population levels and distribution—every year, because circumstances change. In one year, the number of people required to come into the country might be very low, while in another year it might be very high. That debate should also take account of issues such as the number of people leaving the country, the availability of houses and jobs, skills shortages, and the number of places available in our schools and on our GP lists. A range of issues feed into the number of new people we need in the country, and those should be the subject of open debate. I hope the Government will allow that.

Graham Stuart: Is not housing the most fundamental infrastructure provision for a population that is growing as a result of immigration, and is not the Government's most signal failure in that respect their failure to provide proper amounts of housing for both the indigenous population and those coming into the country?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not stray outside the remit of the Bill when she replies.

Angela Watkinson: As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am guided by your advice.
	The London borough of Havering probably has a lower percentage of immigrants than any other London borough. If it is not the lowest percentage, it is the second lowest. That is certainly the case in Upminster, which is part of Havering. In Upminster can be seen the acceptable face of immigration: most of its immigrant community, small as it is, consists of professional and business people who make a positive contribution to the community.
	Just before Christmas, I was invited to a local restaurant for the inaugural dinner of the Emerson Park doctors' association. Emerson Park is a ward in my constituency. I was amazed to see no fewer than 60 doctors, mainly although not exclusively from the Indian sub-continent, representing every aspect of the health profession from paediatrics to geriatrics and just about everything in between—and, of course, GPs. When I congratulated them on having assembled such a large number of people from such a small residential area, they said "Oh, we are not all here. There are about 150 of us in all." That is an example of professionals making an essential contribution to the health service locally, and I am sure that that positive contribution from the immigrant population is replicated throughout the country.
	There is no doubt that legislation is needed to secure our borders effectively and to ensure that all immigration is legal immigration. That is the crux of the matter. We want legal immigration. We do not want illegal immigration. Everyone who wants to settle here should apply through the proper channels. There is a need to ensure that new arrivals enter the country legally, that those who are already here illegally are identified and deported, and that those who have abused the hospitality of their host nation by committing crimes and have served custodial sentences are deported on release from prison. That is an enormous challenge. No one is pretending that that is an easy thing to deal with. It is delicate and difficult but we have to grasp the nettle.

Stewart Jackson: Has my hon. Friend, like me, attended a citizenship ceremony at the local town hall? I was touched to see people from over 40 countries pledge allegiance to the Queen and sing the national anthem at the end of proceedings. Is that not what we should be aiming for, rather than the false premises of multiculturalism, which have demonstrably failed over the past 30 years?

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have not attended an equivalent ceremony in my town hall. I appreciate the value of such ceremonies and of the great interest that immigrant parents take in their children's education, and how well immigrant children do in our schools. Often, they excel and outrun the indigenous children. There is a great lesson for us to learn there. The success of children in schools depends largely on the interest that their parents take in whether they attend school, participate fully and do their homework. That is reflected in the results in our schools.
	This is an enormous challenge. The numbers that we are dealing with are vast, but it must be done, in fairness to genuine applicants who abide by the rules and to the existing community, including law-abiding immigrants who are working and contributing.
	In 2006, the Government produced their immigration and nationality directorate review, the snappily titled, "Fair, effective, transparent and trusted: rebuilding confidence in our immigration system"—a candidate for a landscape paper if ever there was one. It highlighted its aims by stating:
	"We will have biometric ID requirements in place for the highest risk countries".
	Who could argue against that, except that there are all sorts of caveats about the way in which it will be put in place. All sorts of safeguards are required. I shall come to that later. Other aims in the review were to
	"penalise rogue employers who employ illegal workers by implementing fines for employers and seizing the assets of persistent offenders; and disbarring company officers who consent to or connive in knowingly employing illegal workers"
	and to
	"work across government to shut down fraudulent access to benefits".
	That is a particularly interesting one. I have anecdotal evidence from a constituent who tried to report people whom they knew to be making fraudulent claims to social security. They were told that the information was not wanted and turned away. They have not been taken seriously. There is an obvious opportunity there for social security offices to co-operate and take seriously the information that is given to them by neighbours who have observed things. It is not always immigrants. Sometimes it is for other reasons, but the principle is the same.
	People feel a great sense of injustice, particularly if they get up every morning and go out to do a job that may not be very well paid. They may not enjoy it much but they are paying their taxes, keeping a roof over their heads and taking responsibility for their own lives and those of their children. When they see people cheating the system, they get angry. Social security officials whom they contact should be prepared to take that information seriously.
	Another aim of the review was to
	"change the law to make deportation the presumption for foreign national prisoners and to make their appeals non-suspensive".
	I understand that that means not subject to appeal on refugee and human rights grounds. I shall be corrected if I have misunderstood that, but non-suspensive appeals is a new term to me. The review goes on:
	"we will legislate to remove requirements for the consent of the prisoner".
	We will all applaud that if it is possible to implement and enforce it. There is some doubt as to whether EU legislation and human rights legislation will make that possible. I hope that the Minister will clarify what scope the Government have to make such laws that will not be superseded by European legislation.
	The review says that another aim is to
	"strengthen and streamline the law and Immigration rules, to speed up and simplify the immigration system".
	I feel that the Bill falls down on that component in particular.

Keith Vaz: Does the hon. Lady have in her surgeries constituents who come in with letters from the Home Office saying that they will get a reply within three weeks and who, a year and a half later, have still not received a reply? That is what frustrates Members of Parliament and constituents. It is not the legislation. It is the delivery of the service, which is so bad.

Angela Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that every hon. Member has had similar cases in their advice surgeries, or e-mails and letters from people who are utterly frustrated by trying to navigate the system and get decisions made. Unfortunately, some of them resort for advice to people who are often not qualified to give it. They spend large sums of money trying to get decisions made. Having expended all their savings, they will contact their MP, only to find that their MP has a hotline to the immigration service and can get those answers free of charge and that they have made a serious mistake. I constantly advise people against using such advisory services.
	The Bill intends to implement the measures proposed in the "fair immigration" review but they need drawing together. To address those problems effectively, we need a proper borders police. I am pleased that hon. Members on both sides of the House support that, not least my honourable neighbour, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), with whom I share a constituency boundary.
	A borders police would incorporate the powers of immigration officers, police officers and Customs and Excise officers in a comprehensive set of skills. That would deal with all those issues much more effectively than separate authorities. It is necessary that the borders police have the expertise to intercept people traffickers and their victims.
	The new powers conferred by the Bill will enable immigration officers to detain individuals at ports—I am intrigued by this—pending the arrival of a police officer, for a maximum of three hours. I am not clear where those police officers will be. Will they be within the environment of the port or airport, or will they be in the next town down the road? If they are in the nearest police station, suppose it takes them more than three hours to arrive. It is possible that there will not be a police officer available to attend within the three hours, so what then? Clearly, there will be serious doubt about the individual's right of entry. They cannot be detained any longer because the three hours have expired, so what happens next? They cannot leave the port or the airport. Do they just go to the back of the queue and start queuing again? We need clarification on what will happen. All those problems could be overcome with borders police, because they would have the skills and authority to deal with the issues at the same time.
	Also absent is a proper code of practice so that immigration officers know exactly what factors displayed by an applicant would entitle the detention provision to be used and what conditions should be attached. We must address those serious issues if we are to ensure that such draconian powers are used properly. Absconding from detention and/or assaulting an immigration officer attracts a £5,000 fine, which is a huge sum. Obstruction attracts a £1,000 fine. There is only a thin likelihood that offenders would have the means to pay such fines. If they do not have the means, the fines are pointless. All three offences are punishable with a prison sentence of up to 51 weeks, which is just one week short of the year that is required to trigger the automatic detention rules. Why make it necessary for a separate application to deport someone in such cases? The meaning of "automatic" is unclear in that context. Does it mean that there will not be a right of appeal? Of course not—the use of "automatic" is rhetorical, because there is no such thing as automatic deportation.
	Many of the provisions in the Bill will help to strengthen immigration control and are therefore welcome. We all have the good will to try to move towards that end, and the new offence of dishonestly obtaining asylum support, the restriction on late evidence in appeals, the seizure of cash and property connected to crime, and new offences relating to the employment of illegal workers are all welcome. However, the use of biometric data, even under the special circumstances detailed in the Bill, must be approached with extreme caution. The same caveats apply to that narrow use as to the introduction of general identity cards, and the issue gives rise to many questions. For example, what information may be stored, and for how long? How secure is it, and to whom is it accessible? All those arguments emerged in the debate on ID cards and they apply just as much in this case as they do to the more general issue. It could be the thin end of a very large wedge, as it may be softening us up for the highly controversial introduction of compulsory ID cards for everyone.
	Clause 27 includes important measures to deal with the hideous trade in human misery. People trafficking has spiralled out of control. It is difficult to estimate the numbers involved, but between 700,000 and 2 million women and children are probably trafficked across international borders every year. Some 60 per cent. of immigrants in the United Kingdom arrived here illegally, many of them in the back of lorries, so the interception of those vehicles at points of entry is essential. However, it is not just lorries that are the problem—we must not forget boats.
	In my boating days, a yellow flag had to be flown when one returned from abroad. Customs and Excise officers would come aboard, and they had the right to search the vessel. My boating days are over, so I am not sure whether that measure is still in place. However, there are hundreds of thousands of points at which a boat can enter the country—they are not necessarily large ports—and controls are required at all of them. We must be able to identify newly arrived boats, as people are not just sealed in the back of lorries but are smuggled into the country in other ways, too.
	Many of the people who are trafficked are young women who think that they are coming to the UK to find a job and start a new life. They are, however, forced into prostitution and/or labour exploitation while the traffickers grow rich on abuse and brutality. I believe that hon. Members will join together in trying to stamp out that dreadful trade, but more could be done if a border police force were established. I understand that we have agreed to sign the 2005 Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. As I served on the Council of Europe committee that introduced that proposal, I take a particularly close interest in the matter. We should establish a UK border police force with the expertise—it is specific expertise, not just casual observation—to intercept traffickers and their victims at our borders. We should ensure that separate interviews are given, at all points of entry, to women and children travelling with an adult who is not their parent, guardian or husband, so that we can identify potential victims. We must strengthen co-ordination between the relevant Government Departments and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to ensure a coherent, joined-up approach. We must ensure that every police force and local authority has a strategy to deal with the suspected victims of trafficking. We should set up a helpline to provide information for women who have been trafficked and for people who suspect that others are the victims or perpetrators of exploitation.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend said that we need the will to make things happen, so does she share my concern that, throughout the Government's period in office, Home Office Ministers have come to the Chamber to introduce new legislation that is nearly always poorly thought through and fails to tackle the fundamental problems that it seeks to tackle? They should have tried to make the existing rules work better and properly enforce them, as lack of political will and ministerial responsibility is the real problem.

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The proper enforcement of existing legislation together with the formation of a border police force would bring together the different authorities with an interest in the matter. They would be much more effective working together than they are working separately.
	Clause 28 provides for the automatic deportation of foreign criminals and modifies the appeal procedure. There were 10,000 foreign nationals in our prisons in 2005 and, last year, the country was shocked to learn that thousands of them had been released without being considered for deportation. I know from correspondence with my constituents that ordinary law-abiding people are angry and incredulous that immigrants who have abused our hospitality were allowed to disappear into the community. They want to know why they were not deported on conviction.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that a basic reason for that problem is the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998? The application of that law has effectively allowed people who should be deported to get out of it. It costs the British taxpayer an arm and a leg, so the bottom line is that the Act ought to be repealed.

Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend's knowledge of the subject is second to none. His explanation is as I feared, and he has given a definitive answer on the problem.
	If foreign offenders were deported on conviction—that is not the law at the moment—we would need secure borders to prevent their return. Otherwise, people would offend and, in effect, be released without punishment and then come back in a revolving door system and reoffend. Some of my constituents might not have considered that aspect when they wrote to me to complain.
	We must reassure the general public on this matter. We are discussing exactly the sort of fear that the British National party is feeding on, particularly in areas of our country where there are very few immigrants. It appears to focus on areas where there are few immigrants and to frighten the people who live there by saying, "If you don't do something, your area will end up like that area over there where there are large numbers of immigrants." They then paint the picture that none of those immigrants makes any contribution at all to the life of the country. We must bear in mind such strategies and guard against them. The way to do that is to be absolutely open with people and explain to them that we are putting in place a robust system that is fair to everybody—to those wanting to come in and to those already here.
	Deportation powers are already in place. That foreign national prisoners were allowed to go free and out into the community was simply a result of administrative failure on the part of the Home Office. Several Members have raised what might be the crucial point: will the Minister say whether the European convention on human rights will deter enforcement of the new deportation measures in the Bill where individuals face the risk of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment in their own country? If it will, an alternative solution must be found to deal robustly with foreign offenders from that category of country so that they are not free from the threat of deportation no matter how often they offend or how grave their offence.

William Cash: My hon. Friend is addressing a central question that is extremely important. There is no reason on earth why we should not pass our own Westminster legislation to make sure that people are not abused or treated unfairly; we can provide safeguarding procedures. Does she not agree that the route that the Government are adopting through the Human Rights Act is causing more problems, partly because the categories in question extend from degrading treatment of the kind that includes torture, down to the smacking of children? They are both included in the articles of the convention.

Angela Watkinson: Ever helpful, my hon. Friend adds an important point to the debate.
	In the past, deportation has often been hindered on refugee and human rights grounds, and that might yet drive a coach and horses through this part of the Bill. It is intolerable that this country should have to assume permanent responsibility for foreign offenders who cannot be sent back to their country of origin. There must be another answer. We cannot simply be responsible for them for the rest of their lives because it is unsafe for them to go back to their country of origin.
	If a United Kingdom border force was established and our borders were made truly secure, illegal immigrants would know that discovery and deportation were inevitable. That would deter both individuals such as those who come into our country every day in the backs of lorries or by other means and the professional traffickers who exploit both the people who pay them and every taxpayer in our country—the host country. There would be every incentive for new arrivals who want to contribute to the life of the country to enter the country legally, and we would begin—but only begin—to regain control in respect of who is living here, how many there are, where they are and how they are occupied.
	The Bill is a missed opportunity to consolidate and simplify immigration law. Its unconnected measures do not have a central purpose, and unless it is amended extensively in Committee, I regret that it will not achieve its aim.

Andrew MacKinlay: From my selfish point of view, I welcome the fact that Mr. Speaker did not impose time limits in the debate. However, that is also indicative of the fact that this major piece of legislation has not attracted as much competition among Members to speak as is often the case in this House. Does that show that this legislature has become weary of such piecemeal legislation dealing with the whole question of combating illegal immigration, ensuring the rights of people with genuine refugee problems and so forth? There is a need for a consolidation Act, but we should ensure that it is a good Act and that it undergoes full and rigorous parliamentary scrutiny if and when it appears before us in about a year's time.
	I have been present all afternoon and I remember that earlier, I perhaps inadvertently irritated my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I assure her that I did so unintentionally, but it is very important that the legislation undergo considerable scrutiny not only in Committee but on Second Reading. It must do so because it is extremely important to secure the integrity of our borders and to police our ports of entry in one way or another, and we have not fulfilled that task adequately in recent times.
	I represent 14 miles of river frontage on the Thames estuary, the biggest part of which is the port of Tilbury—there are other wharves along that stretch—and I have seen the consequences of its being a serious port of entry. On Friday evenings, some 60 per cent. of the people who come to see me do so in relation to Home Office issues: papers being lost, immigration, refugee status and so on. It used not to be like that; the number of such cases has increased since I became a Member of Parliament. I feel passionately, as do many hon. Members, that we need to get things correct, and we are not doing so at the moment.
	When there was a Conservative Government and it was unfashionable to suggest a borders police, I advocated the idea, but it was dismissed by—I think—the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Now, half the House of Commons is with me, but unfortunately it is the wrong half. I hope that after one more push, people might come to see the compelling logic of having such a dedicated police force.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)—one of those people who are paid large sums of money and cannot say anything here—muttered to me in friendliness, sotto voce, "You're not suggesting that there should be 24-hour cover in all the ports around the United Kingdom, are you?" I say that what we want is the possibility of 24-hour cover. If we had a highly mobile and dedicated force with all the available technology, it would be possible, and it does not happen at present. That is the compelling logic.
	There is technology that allows containers to be screened, but by and large it operates in many key ports only between the hours of 9 and 5. The ports, however, are 24-hour operations. Although such technology is not available everywhere, it could be moved around. If we had a dedicated borders police—I prefer to call them police because people understand that term, but the terminology is not terribly important—they could have all the powers that we are vesting in the various people referred to in the Bill. They could pursue and detect, and work with Home Office, Scots and Irish forces to ensure that wrongdoing such as people smuggling or the smuggling of illegal goods both in and out of the ports is combated; it has to be a two-way process. They would also be a great weapon against the potential for terrorism through our ports.
	I appeal to the Government to reflect on the matter, or at least to take on board the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is unfortunately not in his place. He said that we should use this legislation as an opportunity to give powers to all the various agencies, so that they have interoperability. Immigration officers, customs and excise, the ports police—where they exist—the Home Office police forces and forces in Scotland would then have comparable powers.
	I might have misunderstood my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—she can clarify the matter when she speaks at the Dispatch Box—but she looked concerned or surprised when I told her of the following example. If a Kent or an Essex police officer has reasonable cause to believe that a person is an illegal immigrant, their instructions are that they must tell them—if they can convey the point; sometimes they use a card—to go to Lunar House, Croydon. That is not the way to combat illegal immigration.
	The port of Tilbury has a small dedicated police force. It does not have the critical mass of a national border police, who would have better technology and mobility, criminal investigation departments and forensic back-up, but it works very hard. One or two ports do have port police and they could be the model for a national force. Those local port police do their best. On 23 January, the Port of Tilbury police detained three immigrants at the Tilbury-Gravesend ferry, which remains part of the port of Tilbury but is outside the customs boundary fence. The police believed that the three had entered the UK on the Ostend ferry, which arrives at Tilbury twice a day. The three were taken to the port police station, and the immigration officer for the port of Tilbury was contacted. Two immigration officers attended the port police station, but when the facts were relayed to them, they informed the police officers that it was outside their remit, as the immigrants had been found outside the port boundary. The matter would have to be dealt with by immigration at Stansted airport.
	The Port of Tilbury police tell me that in the past other illegal immigrants whom they have found within the curtilage of the port have been dealt with promptly. They have either been repatriated or allowed to remain in the UK, under controlled conditions, while their case was investigated. However, on the eve of the introduction of this legislation to the House of Commons it appears that the immigration service at Stansted—which I find unsatisfactory in several respects—is going the opposite way to what Ministers suggest. The Port of Tilbury police told me about an occasion on which nine immigrants were put on the ferry and sent back to Ostend, but that is not happening now.
	After the immigration people at the port of Tilbury said that the incident on 23 January was nothing to do with them, the understandably frustrated but diligent police officers contacted immigration at Stansted and informed it that three illegal immigrants had been taken into custody. After one and a half hours, the police were told that no immigration officers would attend and that the immigrants would have to be released. The Port of Tilbury police told me that they released the people following the receipt of a fax with those instructions.
	There is grave concern that the serious lack of co-ordination between the areas of jurisdiction of the immigration service is undermining the intentions of Ministers. I conveyed this story to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, who said, unreservedly, that it was unacceptable. The story buttresses my case for a border police who would deal with all such matters, so there would be no misunderstanding.
	I also became concerned when the Minister said that he intended to regionalise the immigration service. The estuary of the River Thames covers three Government regions: Greater London, the south-east and the eastern region. For some reason, I am in the same patch as Cambridge and Peterborough. If the Minister does intend to take that approach, I hope that he will, exceptionally, break the existing boundaries and ensure that the Thames estuary is in one patch. Otherwise, the confusion will remain and we will see repeats of the incident of 23 January.

Stewart Hosie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew MacKinlay: Well, I was just coming to the West Lothian question, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Stewart Hosie: In fact, I wanted to refer to the example that the hon. Gentleman has just given. He calls for border police, but perhaps the issue is the location of immigration officers. I listened intently to his example, so perhaps he will comment on mine. For the seven years until 2004 there were twice as many immigration officers at Gatwick as in the whole of Scotland, yet in that period not one person entering the country illegally was apprehended at Gatwick, while there were 74 such cases in Scotland. Is not the problem simply that immigration officers are in the wrong place?

Andrew MacKinlay: There is clearly a lack of leadership and proper management, too. The charge implicit in the hon. Gentleman's example is real. If there were a dedicated border police force with a proper chief constable, he or she would have command and control to deploy resources effectively around the United Kingdom. Such a force could carry out raids and then the bandits who exploit weak security at our ports would never be sure that a major exercise would not be mounted by a major police force. At present, we do not have the critical mass for that, so one of the attractions of a border police would be the ability to mount such operations.
	It was not entirely satisfactory that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality was unable to explain to the House why Scotland is exempt from clauses 1 to 4 and the provisions on forfeiture. The explanatory notes give no clue apart from an unamplified reference to the Sewel convention. The convention rightly states that this place will not legislate for powers or competences that have been delegated to the Parliament in Edinburgh. I understand that, but I was surprised to find that these matters are devolved. Although I accept that my judgment was wrong and that apparently there are some devolved matters relating to the Bill, I none the less expected the Minister to tell us that he had reached agreement with the Scottish Executive, who would introduce comparable legislation within the same time frame. That would have been welcome, but instead the Minister constantly refers to discussions with ACPO Scotland and vague discussions with an unnamed member of the Scottish Executive. If the Bill is necessary in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, why is it, or comparable legislation, not necessary in Scotland?
	The Minister said that there were only seven major ports in Scotland. They are more than major—they are mega-big. We all have an interest in ensuring that the same degree of integrity and security is applied at those ports as at Dover or Tilbury. We need UK symmetry in the application of immigration procedures at our ports.
	In response to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), the Minister said that he would place information in the Library, but he did not say when. I want to see that information today, because a number of constitutional issues have been raised that it is our duty to understand. It is not sufficient to probe the Bill in Committee; it should be done on the Floor of the House, so I hope that the Minister will indicate either that the information is in the Library so that we can have a look at it or that he will clarify the position at the Dispatch Box. Why is it not necessary to have the same powers on the statute book of Scotland?

Diane Abbott: rose—

Andrew MacKinlay: While the Minister is thinking about my question, I give way to my hon. Friend.

Diane Abbott: We can all see that the Minister is paying my hon. Friend rapt attention, as is common courtesy in the House, and even though the Minister has not got to his feet, he will no doubt write to my hon. Friend about the points he has raised.

Andrew MacKinlay: Was that it?

Liam Byrne: rose—

Andrew MacKinlay: Does the Minister want to help me? I want some clarification.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but I could not have been clearer in my earlier response to him. I am satisfied that an operational remedy for the mischief I am trying to resolve has been put in place by Scottish Executive members, and from the summary that I have put in the Library I hope he will see that plainly.

Andrew MacKinlay: I take it from what the Minister says that the information is now in the Library, but the operational arrangement is meaningless; it is goobledegook.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when I asked the Minister earlier in the debate, he said that the arrangements would be based on the precedent that an immigration officer could arrest only in pursuance of an existing immigration crime and that any change or any working solution would require a police officer. As yet, there is no indication of how that will happen, except presumably in the instance of highly focused intelligence-led operations, but not in the sort of casual instances at hundreds of ports around the country.

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not want to labour the point any more. The rest of the House understands that the Minister clearly has not got the foggiest idea what he is talking about. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tuts, but she or the Minister could get up to explain things to us. I am begging for clarity and information.
	I very much welcome some of the Bill, however. We have heard speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) and an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who clearly indicated that we need to combat this wicked exploitation of people by bad employers. That is the root cause of the problem, and to an extent, it is one of the remedies for the dreadful traffic and crime of people smuggling.
	It is also important that we put in a bid for sensitivity, because if the Bill is effective, it will reveal a new group of people who have no papers and whom we did not know about. Some people might or might not have had genuine cause to claim asylum, but they might never have done so. Once the legislation is in train, there will be an awful lot of very bewildered and frightened people in abject poverty and alone, because they will have been smoked out. The remedy is not automatically to deport those people. Each case needs to be looked at sensitively.

Neil Gerrard: My hon. Friend is making the very important point that some of the people who will be turned up will be simply unknown to the Home Office. For example, they might have come here perhaps a long time ago from countries without a visa regime, so they never had to apply for a visa, came here through a port and were given entry perhaps for six months. They will have simply stayed, and they will not appear on any Home Office record whatsoever.

Andrew MacKinlay: When that happens, it will be incumbent on Members on both sides of the House to be sensitive. I understand that the role of Opposition is to criticise the Government, and as a Government Member, I am sensitive when the criticism has some validity, but one of the problems is that the immigration service, at Stansted in particular, has played the numbers game.
	I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said a few days ago in  The Independent how outraged he was about the way in which a very nice family had been treated by the immigration service. I know of similar circumstances caused by Stansted immigration service. At 6 o'clock on a Sunday morning, the heavies of the immigration service turned up in a style not dissimilar from that which operated in central Europe in the 1930s, to get a family of nine. The Minister might not like that, but I can substantiate it: that is a fact. Some people get aggravated if they are woken up at 6.30 by Mr. Plod, but I am talking about a family.
	All hon. Members have an obligation to ensure that we do not go for the easy way of meeting targets and figures. Finding a family of nine helps with the figures. The single man is mobile, by definition, and much more difficult for Stansted immigration to track down. We in the House—left and right—have a common zeal to ensure that we combat illegal immigration and that there is the full application of the law, but we are all playing a numbers game in our different ways, and some of the most innocent people are often hit hardest, or even if they are not innocent, they are treated in a way that is, in my view, unacceptable. A family of nine do not abscond. They are in their beds at 6 o'clock on a Sunday morning and it is wholly unacceptable for them to be subject to a raid at that time. I am pleased to have the opportunity of placing that view on the record in the House.
	Clause 45 enables the Bill to be enacted in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. That is not unimportant. Has the Minister for Immigration, Nationality and Citizenship had discussions with their Executives about the way in which the provisions should be implemented? All too often we forget about the diligent way in which the police and immigration services of those overseas territories deal with matters in all our interests.
	Reference is also made to the Republic of Ireland. When the Under-Secretary sums up, will she indicate whether there have been any discussions between the Government of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom about how many people use the United Kingdom as a point of entry, coming here on visitors' visas and entering illegally into the Irish Republic, and how many people go to Dublin to enter illegally into the United Kingdom? I imagine that the ratio is 50:50, but that does not make the situation any more acceptable. Is there sufficient scrutiny on our common land border and sufficient intelligence-gathering to see how people play having the two jurisdictions in the one common travel area? I hope that that has been looked at.
	The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) touched on another matter that I want to raise. We have all had experience of the rogues who rip off bewildered, frightened and almost penniless people. They pretend that they can get those people papers or some status in the United Kingdom. Not enough has been done to root those rogues out and bring them to court. If they are legally qualified, that should be pursued with the Law Society with a view to having them struck off. Whether they are legally qualified or not, there are too many of them committing criminal offences. I would have hoped that the immigration service or the Home Office, and the police service—perhaps if we had the co-ordinated police service that we wanted—could focus on that. It is an evil trade and encourages all the things to which we have referred in the House this afternoon.
	I hope that the Minister for Immigration, Nationality and Citizenship has not closed his mind on the national ports police and that he will take on board the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen that we should anyway give comparable powers to all the various officers in the agencies. I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East and the bewilderment that we have not already got many of the powers in the Bill. One wonders why the provisions have not been brought before the House before. That probably is the fault not of successive Ministers, but of the civil servants, whose names I do not know, but who could and should have flagged up these deficiencies many Bills ago. We would be somewhat ahead of the issue if they had done so. On that note, I wish the Bill well.

Philip Davies: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), whom I like and admire in equal measure and who is a great parliamentarian. He demonstrated why he is such a great parliamentarian once again this evening.
	I would like to put the Bill in context. The first part of that context is political. Back in 1997, there were no British National party councillors anywhere in the country; today, there are 50. The question we have to ask ourselves is: have people become more racist in the last 10 years? My view is that they have not, but I do think that they have become much more frustrated. One of the main issues that they have become frustrated about is the Government's lack of ability to deal with mass immigration. For a parliamentary democracy to work, everybody has to feel that somebody is standing up for them and speaking about the things that concern them. Over the last 10 years—largely due to the blight of political correctness—people have felt that they have not been able to have their say and that these important issues have been neglected across both sides of the House. We neglect these issues at our peril, because extremists prosper in such a void. The solution to the problem of the growth of the BNP is in our hands. Most of the people who vote for the BNP these days are not racists; they are not nasty people. There will always been a hard core of racists in this country, but fortunately they will always be only a tiny number that will not make a great difference. The issue that we have to address is why many ordinary, decent people in this country added their votes to those of racists in such numbers that they allowed them to get a foothold in too many of our communities. The reason is that we have not been doing enough to tackle immigration.
	The scale of the problem is also part of the context. There is one migrant a minute coming into this country, which is equivalent to a city the size of Birmingham arriving every three years or so. Those are big numbers and this is a big problem. That is why people are crying out for mainstream parties to tackle the issue. Although I welcome many aspects of the Bill, it is a very inadequate response to the scale of the problem that we face.

Ian Austin: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is getting dangerously close to justifying people voting for the BNP. People are right to be concerned about illegal immigration—I am concerned about it, too—but they are wrong to think that the BNP has the answer. The BNP believes that a person can never be British if they are black or Asian, even if they were born here and even if they have served their country in the armed forces. The hon. Gentleman would do well to condemn the BNP for its racist attitudes and say that there is no justification for voting for racists and fascists in Britain today.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman totally misconstrues what I am saying. I am not justifying anybody voting for the BNP. I am merely—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please relate his remarks to the Bill? I think that he was just about to go on to that.

Philip Davies: I thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely explain why people vote for the BNP, as opposed to justifying it.
	The issue affects communities. For example, in Bradford the local authority has had to build four schools because of the growth of immigration into the area. An answer to a parliamentary question said that 31 per cent. of the new houses to be built would be required simply to deal with the levels of immigration into this country. Given that that is about the proportion that has to be built on green belt land, we could avoid building almost any houses on such land if immigration was not such a big issue. There is no doubt that immigration also places huge pressures on the national health service and social services.
	The Bill strikes me as being typical of this Government: it contains lots of powers and lots of laws, but no policy and no strategy. It is no good having levers to deal with problems if the Government do not know what the solution is. I venture that having a limit on the number of people coming into this country might be a good strategy that would work with the Bill. The Bill itself gives the Government no strategy whatsoever.
	Like many Members of the House, I do not understand why automatic deportation applies not to anybody who comes into this country and commits to a crime but only to those who have a committed a crime that justifies 12 months' imprisonment. Given that magistrates courts can impose a maximum sentence of only six months in prison, and the vast majority of offences are dealt with by magistrates courts, it seems that very few people will be automatically deported, contrary to what we were led to believe when the Bill first appeared.
	Much of the problem relates to the Human Rights Act 1998, and I reiterate the point made by other Members during the debate, that any effective legislation to tackle large-scale immigration has to deal with that Act. That is why I think that it should be abolished.

Paul Rowen: Is it Conservative party policy to repeal the Human Rights Act?

Philip Davies: Conservative party policy is that we will replace the Act with a Bill of Rights. In future, it would probably be worth the hon. Gentleman's while directing his questions on Conservative policy to Front-Bench Members. I speak from the Back Benches and represent my constituents, as opposed to always representing party policy.
	Will the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), clarify a point on veils when she responds to the debate? In a briefing to regional journalists the other week, the Home Secretary made a big point of saying that the Bill would deal with the issue of people escaping from this country disguised by a veil. It is difficult to see what element of the Bill would prevent that, unless it is the clause that says that an immigration officer
	"may search the individual for, and retain, anything that might be used to assist escape".
	That is the only part of the Bill that I can find that could relate to veils. Given that one of the suspects for the murder of Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford fled the country disguised in a veil, my constituents would be interested to know whether the Bill deals with that issue.
	I understand that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality said that immigration officers already have the power to ask somebody to remove their veil. Well, we all have the power to ask people anything that we like; surely the power should be to insist that they remove the veil. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary clarified whether the power already exists, as most people think it should, or whether it is included in the Bill, as the Home Secretary said when he briefed regional journalists last week.
	I particularly praise the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who is a very brave lady when it comes to the issues that we are discussing. In the past, she has bravely taken up many of the concerns raised today, and she is hugely respected, not only in her constituency but in mine, for all the work that she has done on the issue of forced marriages and immigration more generally. I certainly support her call to raise the minimum age at which people can be brought into the country for the purpose of marriage from 18 to 21. I also support her call to make it a requirement that people should be able to speak English before coming into the country, rather than sit a test once they have entered.
	That brings me to a big problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) made a great speech, but there was one part with which I disagreed. He celebrated the fact that 93 different languages were spoken in Peterborough. I think that we should not celebrate that, but should instead be very sorrowful about it, because I would much prefer us to all speak one language—the English language. That would do more to enhance community cohesion than having 93 different languages spoken.

Mark Pritchard: On the important subject of social cohesion and community relations, does my hon. Friend agree that UK citizens who have been unemployed for more than 12 months as a result of not speaking the language should be encouraged to use the language?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, I remind hon. Members that we are discussing the content of the Bill.

Philip Davies: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will heed your advice. I wish briefly to touch on the issue of asylum. In terms of numbers, asylum is not a big issue in the immigration debate; there are much bigger issues. However, I share many people's concerns about the failure to remove failed asylum seekers from the country, and the way in which that has undermined the system of asylum. We in this country have a proud tradition of looking after people who are fleeing persecution, and I hope that it will continue for many years to come, but it can only do so if there is a robust system in which people have faith.
	I certainly agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) about the time that it takes to deal with many cases. I met some asylum seekers in Bradford yesterday, and I was appalled to learn that all the families that I met had been in the asylum system for between four and eight years. Whatever the rights and wrongs of their claim, that is an obscene amount of time for which to leave them in limbo, wondering what will happen to them. Some have fled terrible persecution. We should not allow such delays to happen.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman wondered how large a contribution asylum made to the problems that we face. Is he broadly supportive of the tipping-point strategy, articulated quite some time ago, in which a greater number of failed asylum seekers were to be removed than the number of people added to the pile of those who are in the country without justification? Did not that system, and the new asylum model used in its wake, produce the kind of cases that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) mentioned, in which immigration staff were required to go for soft targets, in order to meet the requirements of that particular model? That cannot work, can it?

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman may have a point, and the hon. Member for Thurrock's point about soft targets is particularly relevant. In a case that had been going on for eight years, the person concerned had come to this country from France. I was always under the impression that people should be sent back to the first safe country they went to for their asylum application to be heard. I could not quite understand how, after eight years, someone was still being dealt with here, having made it clear that they made their first application in France.
	There is one elephant in the room that it would be impossible not to mention with regard to immigration: the European Union. A huge number of people are coming into this country perfectly legally from the EU, far more than the Government ever predicted. In terms of people coming from outside the EU, the Minister will agree that our border controls can only be as good as the border controls in the EU. If people get into the EU without any particular problem, it makes it easier for them to get from those countries into the UK.
	The excellent Speakout campaign has gained a lot of support across the country and has found that well over 80 per cent. support the view that Britain should get back control of its own borders. I would advise the Minister that if he really wishes to make a difference on immigration, we should get back our border controls rather than handing them over to the EU.

Diane Abbott: On the question of regaining control of our borders, how does the hon. Gentleman see that happening? Would it be by, in a sense, seceding from the EU?

Philip Davies: If the hon. Lady spent more time in the Chamber and less time on television, she would know that I have long argued, both within this place and outside, for Britain to withdraw from the EU. I am perfectly happy to clarify that point and I thank her for giving me the platform to make it clear that I think we would be better off out of the EU.
	The problem of immigration is widespread and is a big problem for many of our constituents. It is no good burying our heads in the sand and pretending that it is not a problem. It is no good pretending, as the Minister would wish us to do, that everything is rosy in the garden and that we cannot even raise the concerns of those people who have voted for the BNP. We must reflect the legitimate concerns of our constituents, or we will see even more people voting for nasty, thuggish parties such as the BNP—something that I want to avoid.
	The issue is in our own hands. We have an opportunity to get those votes back from parties such as the BNP by having some robust and effective measures to deal with mass immigration into this country. I am so sorry that the Bill does not seem to go far enough to address those concerns, but I hope that we can make it more robust in Committee.

Keith Vaz: I was toying with the idea of abstaining on the Bill because of my concerns about it but, having listened to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I shall be enthusiastically supporting it. I found a number of the hon. Gentleman's comments most distasteful. He is right to raise concerns about why people vote for the BNP, but I thought that he might have used the opportunity to condemn the BNP and all it stands for.

Philip Davies: At the end, I made it clear that there were thugs and nasty people in the BNP. I am more than happy to reiterate my view that they are a nasty bunch of thugs.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I again remind Members that the debate today is on the contents of the UK Borders Bill?

Keith Vaz: Indeed, Madam Speaker, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman took that opportunity. However, it is no good him having a go at my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for appearing on television. It is only because the hon. Gentleman is never asked to go on television, no doubt because of his views, that he had a go at her.
	I do not want to stray too far from the Bill and my concern is that here we are yet again debating immigration and listening to yet another Immigration Minister—a different one from when the last Immigration Bill was introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I, who have been in the House for 20 years, have probably attended every immigration Bill debate over that two-decade period. What concerns me is that despite the fact that we pass legislation, we have still not solved the problem that lies at the heart of the immigration and nationality directorate.
	We are not providing a good and efficient service, which is necessary to ensure that we deal with people's cases. As a result, the backlog increases, decisions are not taken, there is delay in processing cases, as the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and many other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned during the debate, and we do not seem to be solving the basic problem. Passing yet another Bill and creating yet another Act of Parliament will not solve the fundamental problem.
	The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality is extraordinarily able. He was elected in a spectacular by-election in Birmingham. He has held a number of other ministerial offices and done so with distinction. If he and the current Home Secretary do not solve the problem that lies at the heart of IND, I do not think that any other Ministers could do so. They are able and have a commitment to deal with the system.
	The Home Secretary was right to tell the House and the public that he felt that IND was not fit for purpose. I have said that for many years, not just under the present Government but, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), under the previous Government. I know that he was not in the House then, but for the 10 years that I was in opposition, from 1987 to 1997, the situation in the Home Office was appalling. The backlog was twice or three times as great as it is now. There were sackfuls of unopened mail at IND. There is a systemic problem that needs to be solved, and I do not believe that it can be solved by legislation.

Stewart Jackson: I know that it is uncharacteristic of the right hon. Gentleman to be beastly to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Is it purely coincidence that the rise of racist, extremist parties always seems to occur under Labour Governments because of incompetence and—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on that already this evening. The debate is not on political parties, but on border controls.

Keith Vaz: What the hon. Member for Shipley says is not true. I have never seen a link between immigration policy and good race relations. We can have good race relations in the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has a seat next door to my Leicester seat. He has a growing Asian population in places like Oadby. Many of my hon. Friends and colleagues in all parts of the House have multicultural constituencies. We have good race relations in this country, and that has nothing to do with our immigration law.

Mark Pritchard: On the issue of borders, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that 2 million immigrants entering the United Kingdom since 1997 is unsustainable in terms of social and physical infrastructure, in particular in his constituency, or does he believe it is sustainable in his constituency?

Keith Vaz: It is absolutely sustainable. I do not believe that immigration has caused this country any problems. The presence of the immigrant community has benefited Britain. There is an economic case for it. I am a product of that system, having come to this country as a first-generation immigrant. Legal and lawful immigration to Britain has created communities that have helped our country and made it, I believe, the best country in the world to live in. The recent arrival of the east European people, following the enlargement of the EU, has benefited our country enormously. It is therefore not right to say that immigration has caused problems.
	On the way in which the Government have dealt with IND, there is a commitment to act, but the problem is the way in which IND operates—how constituency cases are dealt with, how cases are processed and the speed with which they are processed. It is not enough for us to say to our constituents when they come to our surgeries that the backlog is getting smaller. I want this Minister to be the first Minister in 10 years to tell the House of Commons that the backlog has gone.
	The way to get rid of the backlog is not to move resources from IND to the Prison Service. It is madness that there is a proposal to cut the IND budget by 9 per cent. in order to increase the Prison Service budget. That just will not wash. We need sufficient resources to allow people of calibre and ability to be able to judge cases. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the civil servants who administer immigration policy; they are just demoralised. There are some fantastic people working in IND, but they are working in very difficult circumstances and there is a lack of leadership from the top of the management board as to the way in which things operate.
	I write at least 50 letters a week to a woman called Lin Homer. I have met her, and I am sure that she is a dedicated civil servant, just as she was a dedicated chief executive of Birmingham city council. The fact is, however, that Lin Homer and her colleagues—her deputy directors and the higher management of IND—are simply not solving the administrative problems that need to be solved. They should not write letters to our constituents telling them that it is the IND's ambition to address their problems and to give them a decision within 28 days, or that its target is that 70 per cent. of its cases are going to be solved within a 28-day period. Our constituents come to our surgeries clutching those pieces of paper, and they believe what they read. Many of those people have been waiting one or two years for a reply.
	At the same time as we ask people to go through the misery of waiting for a decision, we also ask them to pay fees. We ask them to pay for a service that we would not be satisfied with if it were provided by the private sector. An application for a work permit now costs more than £300. Do they get a decision quickly? On balance, if they apply from outside this country, no. The service inside the country is actually pretty good, but anyone who applies from abroad under the new scheme instituted by the previous Immigration Minister—known as managed migration—will have to wait a very long time.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, representing a seat such as his in Birmingham, has a big constituency case load. I say to him in friendship that the only way to solve the problem in IND is to get people of talent into the service. He is giving a shadow agency the powers to get things done—not under the Bill—and creating a completely new agency. Moving the problems from the desk of the Immigration Minister and putting them on the desk of the chief executive of a new agency will not solve the problems that we face.
	There needs to be a fundamental review of the way in which the decision-making process works. To be perfectly frank, when right hon. and hon. Members write to Ministers asking for meetings about difficult constituency cases, those meetings should be granted. In my 20 years in the House, I have written to Ministers of all political persuasions to ask for such meetings and those meetings have been granted. We need that ministerial focus. Create an agency by all means, but do not take away accountability to Members of the House or the Minister's ability to scrutinise those cases.

Diane Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only the question of Ministers granting meetings on the occasional difficult case that is key to the issue of accountability? Is it not also the case that delays have a multiplier effect on the problems in the system? They cause intense human misery, but they also give an incentive to shoddy immigration advisers to encourage a minority of people to put in baseless claims. If they know that they are going to have to wait two or three years, why not? If only the system were more efficiently managed, people would be happier and more content, and it would squeeze fraud out of the system.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. This situation has been made worse by the cuts in legal aid, which mean that good practitioners are coming out of legal aid, leaving citizens at the mercy of unscrupulous immigration advisers. People then come to our surgeries and expect us to sort out the problems.
	There are people of talent in the system. I urge the Minister to look at the way in which UK Visas is run. It has a better system than the Home Office: one writes a letter about a constituency case, which goes to the post abroad, and one gets a reply. One might not be happy with that reply but at least one gets a reply with information on which one can act As for the Home Office, one gets a reply from a deputy director saying that one must wait another six months or even longer for the case to be considered. For example, the family reunion cases, which the Minister's predecessor agreed to years ago, are still going through the system, and have not been dealt with.
	The Minister has the capacity, ability and personal charm to persuade people to make a difference in the way that they do their jobs. That takes resources, however, and it requires the right people. I urge him to consider some of the senior officials such as Carol Doughty in New Delhi or Mandy Ivemy in Bombay—directors of visa services who must deal with thousands of visa cases, and who are able to sort out the problems that are put before them and make decisions immediately. When one is operating on the basis of a right of appeal, that is so much better.
	I will concede to the Minister all that he is doing on border controls. I do not know the answer—I do not have a coastline surrounding Leicester, so I cannot say what that is like. He has done the research, and he tells me that we need the provisions. On customer service and the ability to deal with cases, however, he has lost me. To regain me, he must provide a better system that works.
	My next point is on liaison between Departments. In an Adjournment debate a few years ago, I raised the case of a constituent of mine who was killed by a foreign national who, before he went to court for the hearing, was given his passport back and allowed to return voluntarily to China. My constituent's parents were told about that after it had happened. They have therefore never had closure. The person who killed their son has never been tried in this country, and for all I know is back in this country as a visitor. The lack of liaison even between parts of the same Department is lamentable. If the Bill means better liaison, I support it. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies, I want her to assure me that the Bill will have that effect and that there is not another Bill coming to solve the problems that we have seen.
	My last point is on the European Union. We are an island—the hon. Member for Shipley would probably like to close the channel tunnel and stop direct flights from London to Paris, because he thinks that we can survive on our own; he is a Conservative MP, but that is not, of course, Conservative party policy. The fact is, however, that we need to work with our partners in Europe to combat illegal immigration. The whole Tampere II agenda, which became the Hague programme following European summit meetings, has been about countries working together. Of course, the Opposition and tabloid papers scream when we talk about giving up the veto on immigration, and the Government have not done that. The fact remains, however, that we can work with our European partners—short of giving up the veto, to make my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) happy—to ensure proper and adequate co-operation to prevent illegal immigration and the other problems addressed by the Bill.
	That will mean our Ministers going to European summit meetings and taking forward the Tampere agenda, which has lain dormant for far too long. Justice and Home Affairs is just as important as ECOFIN and all the other work in the European Union, as it is so complicated and it requires co-operation. I am not suggesting that we should have a European police force. We have Interpol, but are we using it as effectively as we should to do the kinds of things that it should do?
	I believe that my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary have a willingness to sort this matter out. Both they and the Home Secretary are people of real talent. I believe that they want to make sure that the situation is improved. I plead with them not to come back to the House in six months' time to say that they need another Bill; they do not.
	What this Government need to do is to take a grip on the operation of the system to ensure that when the Immigration Minister starts to devolve IND, he consults right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the community, so that he does not just move from Lunar house to Mars house in Birmingham, or from Apollo house to Jupiter house somewhere in the north of England, and the same problems go elsewhere. Let us try to solve the problems. It is about customer service and providing a good service for our constituents. If he does that, he will have done a real service to this country in his term as Immigration Minister.

Edward Garnier: The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), my parliamentary neighbour, made a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech, although it was thought- provoking in a way that was different from a speech made a little earlier. However, beyond all other speeches, I want to draw attention to the speech by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I do not say this simply to annoy the Government, albeit that that is his purpose from time to time.
	I highlight the hon. Gentleman's speech because he demonstrated to us the purpose of being a Member of Parliament. Although we are elected on a party political platform, it is not our purpose to come here and abdicate our responsibilities for holding the Government to account. It does not matter whether someone is a Labour Member of Parliament, a Conservative Member of Parliament or even a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament; it is the job of us all, wherever we sit and from whichever party we gain our support, that we should constantly demand the Government to justify themselves. He did precisely that. Not for the first time, I salute him. Having drawn attention to his speech, perhaps uncomfortably for him and those around him, I hope that he will persuade the right hon. Member for Leicester, East to keep in his seat for a number of reasons, but in particular this evening, rather than allowing him to be provoked into voting for what is perhaps not an altogether satisfactory Bill.
	A number of themes have come through the debate, not all of which have had much direct connection with the Bill, but that does not necessarily matter because the issues discussed have been important. They include biometrics, the abuse of migrant workers in jobs and housing, people trafficking, the powers of immigration officers and the need for a unified national border police, what we are to do with foreign criminals and the extended issue of deportation generally, whether the Bill will work—and, perhaps equally important, whether the Home Office will be able to make it work—and regulation. Those are the general themes highlighted by the debate.
	In a newspaper article, the publicity-seeking Home Secretary—I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to the Chamber at this late hour, although perhaps he is not so publicity-seeking, because he chose to write the article for  The Guardian—wrote:
	"If you renovate a house you start by taking the wallpaper off. Only then do you discover more problems...No one need tell me that there are problems in the Home Office. I know. That's why...I said parts of the Home Office were 'not fit for purpose'...I was sent to the Home office to do a job...But it isn't mission impossible. Judge me not on the challenges but on my response to them."
	The response that we had today is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said, the sixth Bill on immigration and asylum.
	I am not sure why the Bill is called the UK Borders Bill. It ought more properly to be called the immigration and passports Bill or the immigration and asylum Bill (No. 6), but perhaps that would give the game away—that we have had so much legislation from the Home Office, not just on immigration and asylum, but right across the ambit of its remit, but so little improvement. Member after Member has said this evening that what is wanted from the Government is effective administration, an efficient, politically motivated, strategic leadership of the Home Office and management of the issues with which it must deal. That has been said by Members on both sides of the House.
	No one pretends that those issues are easy, particularly this aspect of public policy, but I do not believe that anyone, having listened to the Minister—an engaging and bright Minister—

Barry Sheerman: Condescending and pompous.

Edward Garnier: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to insult his hon. Friend the Minister by calling him condescending and pompous, I think he will find that every other Member in the Chamber entirely disagrees with him.  [Interruption.]

Barry Sheerman: rose—

Hon. Members: Do not give way to him.

Edward Garnier: I think the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee can go to the back of the class.
	The Minister gave a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation of the Government's policy, but no matter how good his motives are, the machinery with which he is trying to implement that policy is flawed, because the Government are unfit for purpose. We have here a Bill that is designed to sneak corrections to the Identity Cards Act 2006 through the back door. We have here a Bill that is designed to persuade us that, by introducing biometric passports and by introducing biometrics to immigrants' residential status documents, the Government are about to achieve something wonderful. But we all know that the Government have changed their mind time after time on biometrics.
	We now know—because the Minister admitted it in a written statement just before Christmas—that instead of one great computer, which I dare say the Government now accept would be unsafe, open to hacking and incapable of providing the service that it was designed to provide, they propose to establish three separate vast computers, which will no doubt fail to communicate with each other, fail to be produced according to budget, and fail to perform the task that the Government think they have set them.
	The Government have mishandled the whole issue of biometrics. There is not a Conservative Member, and I dare say there is not a Labour Member either, who disagrees with the notion that there should be biometric passports. That means that when we present our passports at the port of entry, an immigration officer can read the information contained in the chip and verify our identity. Where we—Conservative Members, at least—part company with the Government is on the use of the biometric system on the identity card as a key to that great national computer, the national identity register. Here we see the Government at sixes and sevens: they really do not understand what they wish to derive from identity cards and the biometric system.
	I mentioned regulations earlier. It is clear that, like the Identity Cards Act, the Bill is no more than a Christmas tree on which the Government will hang as yet undrafted, unseen regulations. The scope of the registration regulations is extremely broad, and the bulk of the detail will be in regulations made by the Secretary of State. We need only look at the Bill to see that the Secretary of State will have power to make regulations that may include open-ended obligations. For example, there will be regulations requiring the use of a document when a question arises about a person's status in relation to nationality or immigration. A person producing that document will be required to provide other information for comparison, and there is potentially unlimited scope in regard to the information that can be required. Regulations will make provision as to the content of documents that include non-biometric information and allow for the document to be combined with other documents. All those powers are handed over to the Secretary of State—powers that are untrammelled by detailed knowledge of the wording of the regulations.
	The regulations can require the document holder to notify the Secretary of State at any time stipulated by regulations—further regulations—and require the surrender of the document or any other documents. Sanctions for failure to comply with any of the regulations can be severe. While the financial penalty is limited so far to a £1,000 fine, more drastic steps such as the cancellation of leave to remain in the UK can also be imposed.
	Clause 8 provides a direct link between the information contained in the document and the information that will be held on the national identity register created by the Identity Cards Act. That allows regulations to permit the use of information for specified purposes not relating to immigration, and provides that there is no need to destroy information if it is retained in accordance with another enactments. Therefore, the scope of the regulations is extremely broad. They can theoretically force any non-European economic area person to provide unlimited information for unlimited— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the House.

Edward Garnier: For example, regulations made under clause 5(2)(d) could require that any person required to apply should provide detailed information about their medical history, which could then be used for purposes that have nothing to do with immigration. Of course, the regulations will clarify the scope, but the ability of Parliament to determine that scope is limited. We are handing over this evening, to this Home Secretary, powers that have no circumscription. They have no limit and they have no necessary connection to the problem that we face in relation to immigration and asylum.

Ian Austin: Which bits of the speech by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is the hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to disassociate the Front Bench of the Conservative party from?

Edward Garnier: As I said in my opening remarks, there are some speeches that are worthy of rehearsal, and I mentioned that of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), and there are some perhaps that do not require to be repeated.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a question. I have given him an answer. He should now be clear where I stand on that issue.  [Interruption.] Good. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is clear where I stand on that issue.
	Further to the central point, we have been presented with a Bill—

David Davies: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?  [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not indicated that he is prepared to give way.

Edward Garnier: We have been presented with a Bill that does no more than present yet further problems, but no answers. One would expect that a Government who are now introducing their sixth immigration Bill and probably their 61st Home Office Bill to do with criminal justice and other matters would at least have the guts and intellectual coherence and honesty to produce a Bill that deals with the problems that we have to face.

David Davies: Thinking back to his earlier comments relating to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), will my hon. and learned Friend join me in recommending that all Members be willing to have the guts to hold their Front Bench to account?

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend has never been backward in holding anyone to account, and I suggest that he carry on doing so.
	The Government, as I said, face a huge problem, which the Opposition wish to help them to solve. Regrettably, pieces of legislation such as the Bill will not provide any answers, and certainly none that will convince the British public that the Government have their interests at heart.

Joan Ryan: May I, too, express my gratitude for an informed and lively debate in the Chamber? Immigration is a subject that always attracts a great deal of attention, both in this Chamber and the other place, because of its bearing on the economy and on society as a whole. The Bill contains measures that are intended to help us control immigration from abroad better, at the border and in-country. Additional powers are needed to tackle the challenges posed by increasing global migration, which is part of globalisation. Those challenges include an increase in organised immigration crime, either from abroad through people trafficking or in-country through the illegal labour market.
	A greater number of people are coming here legally, too, so it is essential that we have the right powers and systems in place, as well as the right technology to manage them. When they are no longer entitled to be here, we must be able to ensure that they leave. The Bill therefore focuses on strengthening our borders. That is not simply a case of providing immigration officers at ports with extra powers, as it involves removing the incentives to enter the UK illegally in the first place. We have looked at specifically targeting people who abuse our hospitality as well as those who seek to profit from illegal immigration. The Bill includes tough measures to crack down on illegal working and to root out fraudulent claims for benefits through the introduction of biometric immigration documents for individuals subject to immigration control, as well as extra powers for immigration officers. We are improving cross-Government working with information-sharing powers that will help us to detect fraudsters and illegal workers.

David Davies: rose—

Joan Ryan: We are tackling facilitation and people trafficking by extending our prosecution powers, and we are deporting people who commit serious crimes.

David Davies: rose—

Joan Ryan: I do not intend to accept interventions at the moment, because many Members have made valuable points, not least the hon. Gentleman himself, and I should like to deal with some of those points.
	We are living in an age in which the world is becoming smaller because of more accessible and affordable travel routes. In response, we need to step up our border controls to cope with increasing demands. We want to protect the public and their interests, so we must provide a fair and effective immigration system in which immigration is controlled and the immigration laws are enforced and therefore respected. We want to take advantage of the increase in global migration, but in a controlled way that is right for Britain. We want the right people to come here to work and study—people who will contribute positively to our society and economy. Equally, we need to ensure that we stem the harmful effects of illegal migration, which is why the measures in the Bill are important.
	This piece of legislation is part of a wider package of measures. A great deal of work has already been done to bring the immigration system into the 21st century. We have moved our border controls to the continent, and we have introduced a global network of border advisers. We are introducing a points-based system to ensure that the right people come here to work and study. In July 2006, we undertook a comprehensive review of the immigration and nationality directorate, publishing proposals for the future of immigration management in the UK. We have consulted widely with the public, the police, our partners in local government, the NHS, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the business community. That has proved invaluable in identifying the powers needed by the border and immigration agency when it starts work in April to strengthen the border and enforce immigration laws better. I hope that that gives some comfort to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who was very concerned about whether there will be any more legislation. This Bill, in conjunction with moving to agency status and the enforcement strategy that will be introduced in the near future, should address the concerns that he raises. This is a package of measures.

Keith Vaz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Joan Ryan: I will give way after I have made a little more progress, as I want to make some points.
	The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) did not say anything very positive about the Bill, but he was positive towards the end of his comments about measures on trafficking and facilitation. I am pleased to have his support on that, and I believe that there is cross-party support for tackling that obnoxious, heinous and damaging crime. Overall however, the hon. Gentleman's comments were not terribly positive, and he certainly was not positive about measures that have already been taken. Annual asylum applications are at their lowest level since 1993. A majority of initial decisions are now taken within eight weeks. In 2005, 17,000 illegal immigrants were stopped crossing the channel and 30,000 at airports around the world. I am sure that he will remember that the measures were not supported by him or his party. Therefore, they should look carefully at the well-thought-through measures in the Bill, and they should support them if they truly believe what they say about strengthening our borders.

Keith Vaz: The Minister has my support for the proposals in respect of the reorganisation of the immigration and nationality directorate, because that fits in with what the Home Secretary said when he took over the Department. However, will she give the House an assurance that the accountability point will be accepted, so that even though it will be an agency we can still go to Ministers, and Ministers will have the final say?

Joan Ryan: I can indeed give that assurance, and I can say to my right hon. Friend that we will provide even greater powers for the regulator. We, too, think that that is very important.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), made some telling points, many of which I am sure will be discussed in Committee. We agree very much with him that employers who are abusive, and employers and agencies who act illegally, should be subject to the full force of the law. They provide a pull factor, drawing people into this country.
	My right hon. Friend and a number of other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), expressed concerns about the possible consequences when enforcement takes place and the new powers bite. They are right to raise concerns about whether we will put strategies in place to deal with the consequences of increasing enforcement. I assure them that that enforcement and the advent of the biometric immigration document will be rolled out on an incremental basis, that we will ensure that we deal with the consequences of increasing enforcement—which will be the turning up of people who are here illegally and working illegally—and that we will address all the issues surrounding that. That is the right thing to do.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen also raised the possibility of aligning the powers of Revenue and Customs staff and immigration officers. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality pointed out in his opening remarks, we see that as an important step in the right direction, and it will make a difference. My right hon. Friend also asked about the fraudulent use of EU documents. I am sure that he is aware that that is covered by the Identity Cards Act 2006, which makes it an offence to possess an illegal document or to intend to use a false immigration document, including EU identity cards. I hope that that gives him some reassurance.
	Through the measures in the Bill, it is our intention to create a more visible presence at our border. An important part of that is giving immigration officers at ports the powers to detain individuals who are the subject of an arrest warrant or liable to arrest by a police constable. It is essential as we move forward that all agencies at the border work together to achieve a common aim: protecting the public not just from illegal immigration, but from the threat to our national security.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, asked why we have yet to consult on the illegal working measures in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. We will consult on them this year—I thought that he might know this—before introducing the civil penalty scheme. In fact, we have brought forward that consultation by a year, which he will doubtless welcome as those are important provisions that will help us to bear down on illegal working. They will also make a significant difference as our cross-government enforcement strategy is introduced and starts to bite. As we move forward, it is essential that all these agencies work together, for the reasons that I outlined.
	The Bill also includes important measures to tackle facilitation and people trafficking, to which a number of Members have referred. Those profiting from the misery of others will no longer be able to hide abroad. As soon as a known trafficker comes to the United Kingdom, we will be able to arrest them. Alternatively, we will have the power to track them down abroad and to extradite them to face prosecution here. I am pleased that we have support throughout the Chamber for these measures. We are all conscious, as we move toward the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery, that this is slavery by any other name.
	I want to clarify what my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality said about issuing biometric documents to people aged under 16, just to be absolutely sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who asked about under-16s, understands the information therein. Biometric immigration documents will be issued to under-16s as proof of their immigration status, and they will contain a facial image. We are still considering at what age the requirement for fingerprints will apply. Discussions are under way in the EU regarding at what age children should have their fingerprints recorded; we currently record the fingerprints of asylum seekers from the age of five. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that these junior biometric immigration documents cannot then be designated as ID cards. He will know that the Identity Cards Act 2006 applies to people aged 16-plus. I hope that that clarification is helpful to him.
	The biometrics measures are indeed a substantial and important part of this Bill, along with the enforcement measures. The introduction of the biometric immigration document as an enforcement mechanism and the new powers for immigration officers will help us to tackle illegal working and immigration crime better. It is essential that front-line staff have the right powers to act swiftly when confronted with someone committing an immigration offence. Over recent years, this aim has progressed, and the measures in the Bill go one step further in allowing immigration investigations to be carried out independently of other agencies. The Bill is a key element in delivering these improvements, and I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

UK BORDERS BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the UK Borders Bill:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 22nd March 2007.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. —[Jonathan Shaw.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 174.

Question accordingly agreed to.

UK BORDERS BILL  [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified——
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the UK Borders Bill, it is expedient to authorise-(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of-(a) any expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act, and(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided, and(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 8th January, be approved. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Health Care and Associated Professions

That the draft Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

European Institute of Technology

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14871/06 and Addenda 1 and 2, draft Regulation establishing the European Institute of Technology; and supports the Government's view that while the Proposal will potentially provide a means of strengthening innovation and competitiveness, a number of issues still need to be addressed before the Government can support this Proposal. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Eu-China Relationship

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 14381/06, Commission Communication 'EU-China: Closer partners, growing responsibilities', and No. 14823/06, Trade and Investment Policy paper 'Competition and partnership'; and supports the Government's key objectives: to foster China's emergence as a responsible global player; to promote sustainable development, modernisation and internal reform in China; and to get the best for the United Kingdom from China's rise. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (SOUTH LONDON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Simon Hughes: I am particularly grateful that you have allowed me the opportunity to hold an Adjournment debate on this subject, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), for being present. She has worked for the local authority in Southwark and for the Royal College of Nursing and I hope that I will not embarrass her by saying that she is still a Southwark resident when she is in London. I know that she will be concerned and will understand the concern about these issues. I am particularly grateful to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for being present. She is one of five local MPs, of whom I am also one. The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) is another, as is the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who sends her apologies. She wished to be here, but cannot be for family reasons. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) is the other. All of us, across the party divide, are concerned about the issues that I have the privilege of raising and have raised them personally with the Secretary of State for Health and the Ministers of State. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport worked at the Maudsley hospital and therefore has direct experience, as well as constituency-relevant experience, as do we all.
	I want to pay tribute to three other groups of people. The first is all the staff who work in mental health services in south London, who do an amazingly courageous and professional job. Without them, many people who are alive today would be neither alive nor as well as they are. The second is all the campaigners who have risen up to take part in the democratic process, perfectly properly and lawfully, wanting to be sure that their voice has been heard. One of them, a friend of mine for many years, is Stan Hardy. He is over 85 and, feeling that this is something that he wanted to do, he has been given a new lease of life. I pay tribute to such people, who could have been sitting in their armchairs but have decided that mental health services are important enough for them to stir themselves. Some are service users, some are families or friends of users and some have never used mental health services.
	The third group, which is unusual—I do not think that I have paid such a tribute recently—is the staff of our local paper, the  South London Press, which we share with other south London boroughs. Its editor clearly decided that this was an issue that she wanted to put on the agenda. As she told us tonight, at the meeting that we held before we came here, this is an issue that has had an unparalleled response from the public and on which the paper has continued to campaign strongly and determinedly.
	I say to the Minister of State that we are here with all that support behind us. As I said to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whom I met just before the debate, I will not be able to do justice to the case that those groups have made to us because it not only spans the NHS planning system, complicated statistics and a long history, but includes the personal experiences of people who have been very near the edge.
	This is about people, not systems, and I want to share with the House two personal reflections that I hope will help. Like any MP who does their job properly I find that many people come to me with mental health issues. Somebody came to see me a few months ago because he had got into terrible debt, and despite all the advice he had received, he had not been able to get out of it and the debts were piling up. He suffered from bipolar dysfunction. In the end, somebody suggested that he came to see his MP. I was able, with the help of the companies concerned, effectively to get rid of his financial problem. Of course, people who suffer from mental illness do not necessarily put it behind them for ever or even for a long time; it can come back again and again. Not long ago, that person presented again, to a doctor in our borough. The doctor could not at that moment deal with him herself, so she sent him to the Maudsley emergency clinic where, she knew, he would get immediate and appropriate treatment. I am here because people such as that man, and people whom we know in our families, our circle of friends and our communities, have terrible struggles with mental illness and we have in our part of London the national flagship service for dealing with mental illness.
	It is an odd coincidence—I did not know this until a few days ago—that it was 100 years ago this year that Henry Maudsley gave the money to London county council for the land for the Maudsley hospital. The war intervened, and it was not built until after the war. The hospital and, on the adjacent site, the Institute of Psychiatry, are national flagships—that is the phrase that has been used—in the treatment of and research into mental illness. My brother worked there for a while and, as I say, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport worked there. Both institutions have fantastic reputations.
	I am here because there is a real concern that at least one, if not two, of the elements of that set of services, the Maudsley emergency clinic and the Felix Post service for the elderly, which includes day care, could be lost when they need not be and when there is not an adequate alternative. I want to make the case for them. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to say to us that they will not, as is planned, close in a matter of weeks but that there will be a reappraisal to take into account the huge number of serious arguments that I, among others, keep hearing from the users, the doctors, the consultants, the nurses, the staff, the unions and many others with an interest. People have been willing to speak out, even though they risked their jobs by doing so, because they feel so strongly about the subject. I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of what they are saying.
	I want to add two or three points to put the matter in context, but I am conscious that this is a short debate. The Minister will know the background figures, but the most recent parliamentary answers show that, in the last year for which we have figures, there were just short of 200,000 admissions to national health service hospitals in England under mental illness specialties. I asked the Library for the figures, and according to the best estimate that it could give, 250,000—a quarter of a million—people a year in England and Wales are admitted to hospital because of mental illness. One in four people suffer from mental health problems at some stage in their life, but in Southwark the rates are higher than average, as the Minister knows. The London-wide suicide rate is about five people in 100,000, but the Southwark rate is nearly eight in 100,000.
	The Minister may not know this, but I have discovered that, according to all the expert evidence, Southwark and Lambeth have the highest level of psychosis in the country, and probably the world. I am no expert on such matters—I am a layperson—but people have shown me the evidence and the statistics, and the evidence is not just based on presentation and anecdote. A combination of factors is responsible. They have to do with the urban community, deprivation and poverty, and the introduction of large groups of immigrants over the decades and centuries, some of whom are from communities in which there is a particularly high prevalence of mental illness. It is the combination of those factors in communities such as ours that is responsible. We are here to argue for a service that caters not just for those people, but for people outside Lambeth and Southwark too.
	It is not usual to find a 24-hour mental health emergency clinic in this country; in fact, it is unusual—it is the exception, not the rule. It is like those other unusual things, the beacons of excellence. The emergency clinic has been here for 50 years, and people from other parts of London and beyond are sometimes pointed in its direction by the police or friends. Homeless people who have heard of it are sent there, by doctors who cannot cope, or by family. The service is a bit like the Samaritans, but with a face. One of my parents has worked for the Samaritans for many years, and they did and do a fantastic job. The Maudsley has a telephone hotline, too, but it also has a dedicated space, open 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, where a person can be seen by doctors and nurses immediately, and where they are safe. It is a refuge. It has a waiting area, but it also has separate rooms, all of which are private and confidential, where people can be seen.
	Budget cuts have been forced on the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, which is a four-borough trust, including Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham and Croydon. Some £8 million is to be taken out of the trust's budget by Southwark and Lambeth, and as a result, the financial pressure is on, so the trust has to look for other services to cut. If it were not for that pressure, we might not be holding this debate today. It did not have to decide to cut the mental health service, but as a result of that pressure and other factors, it decided that the service should be cut.

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and will be very brief. I am pleased to support him in this debate because, after all, the Maudsley is a place not only of professional excellence, but of financial excellence, and it is a great shame that we had to turn to the Maudsley to make reductions. I am keen to support him, because as a result of the financial pressures, there have been the first rumblings about service reductions in Croydon. I applaud him for bringing the issues to the House's attention.

Simon Hughes: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
	I will not lecture the Minister on the finances of the health service because although the Govt have greatly improved many parts of the health service, this is not about costs and budgets but about retaining the service. It is not even about the site as much as it is about the service. It is about making sure that there is somewhere to go when one needs it.
	I have watched the huge improvement in the home treatment services and I understand that lots of people need someone who gives support during the four, five or six weeks of a crisis. Those involved do a brilliant job. However, there are some people who, in the middle of the night, at the weekend or on a bank holiday—when at present there is no home treatment service—cannot be dealt with at home. They do not want to stay at home and they need to leave; home is where they are imprisoned and they need to escape.
	At that moment, such people will in future be asked to go across the road to King's College hospital's accident and emergency service. King's has improved; it is a great hospital. The A & E unit is greatly improved; I was there the other day. But it has already outgrown what it was planned to cater for, and I promise that it could not cope physically with both the physical ailments that come through the door and the mental health ailments.
	If someone is coming in on the edge of suicide, terribly deranged, very violent and psychotic, will they be helped by being next to a person coming in from a car smash or a fireman with an axe in his head? Will that help to calm that person? There are only two rooms in King's A & E with doors, not curtains. Is it appropriate for those people to be looked after literally under the same roof, however brilliant the staff are? If so, is it appropriate for the person to be shown to a corner for mental health patients? Is that not reinforcing the stereotypes that people have about mental health?
	The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, her hon. Friends and mine are arguing that we need a dedicated space and refuge that is always available and that is, as it were, supported by the experts. All the evidence from nurses and doctors is that we cannot assume that we can bring in people who are not on site at the last minute, or that we can contain the violent people and then take them over the road, with security people, to the Maudsley. There are some inappropriate outcomes; on some occasions, people who cannot be treated when they need to be go off and either risk taking their own lives or, equally badly, risk taking the lives of others by their uncontrollable behaviour.

Brooks Newmark: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate. Having lived in south London for 18 years, I know that this is an issue that he and his constituents are passionate about. However, this is not an isolated instance. North Essex mental health care trust has lost £4 million, which has been top-sliced. Does he share my concern that the problem with the Government is one of reverse engineering: not putting the patient's needs first, but putting finances before the patient?

Simon Hughes: Politicians such as myself, the hon. Gentleman and the Minister are involved, but a lot of the people involved in the issue are not politicians, and people said at the meeting tonight that they had never been involved in party politics before but had been involved in community issues for 50 years. There is no party issue here; it is about how we can come together to take things forward.
	The letter from the Secretary of State on 12 January followed the decision by both Lambeth and Southwark councils that this was the wrong road to go down. The scrutiny committees of both councils and the joint council scrutiny committee looked into the matter and said that they wanted the service to be kept. The Members of Parliament have all made that view clear.
	The proposal is that there should be a transfer over a matter of weeks, with the Maudsley emergency clinic probably closing by the end of April. The poor manager and his staff who are running it are in a terrible position because they have to do the bidding of their NHS masters, but they know the pressure from the community. The idea is that their work will be picked up by the service over the road, which is not ready and will not be ready for at least a year. Even if the rebuilding took place, it still would not have the facilities.
	The Minister may have been in the House last Wednesday when the hon. Member for Vauxhall put a question to the Prime Minister, who said that he would speak to the Secretary of State for Health about the matter. The Secretary of State for Health was in Southwark at another place the other day, and was asked by campaigners in support of the Maudsley whether she would review the issue, and she said she would be happy to reconsider the matter. After the debate I will be happy to let the Minister and the Department have all the representations that I have received from nurses and doctors, the Royal College of Nursing and so on.
	I ask the Minister to take back to the Secretary of State a request to stop the clock, so to speak. It is fair to say that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the other Members of Parliament and I ask for a moratorium—a pause while we work out an acceptable way forward with the community, the users, their families, the clinicians and the practitioners.
	I end with this proposition: if a mental health service exists to stop people going over the edge, it must have the confidence of the public. If it has the confidence of the public, they will use it. Yes, numbers may go up, but that will be a sign of success because people are using the service. I have been in the House 24 years this month. I have been told that there is no more important subject than this. It is potentially a life and death issue. I know the Minister understands that, and I do not say it as blackmail or to be over-heavy.
	I heard on Saturday that I had lost another friend to suicide. I have lost friends in the past, and I have seen family and friends nearly go down that road or suffer badly from depression. We all have that experience. This is about saving lives, and it cannot be the best politics to press ahead with a decision that does not have the confidence of the community or any of their representatives, when we could have a better solution if we just sought to agree it in a way that gave confidence. I hope the Minister will respond positively, and I hope we can save a 24-hour clinic service on the Maudsley site or nearby to do the fantastic work in the future that it has done for the past 50 years, which has literally been the salvation of hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing the debate. It is clearly a matter of great concern to him and his constituents, as I know it is to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I know that both Members have had meetings with the Secretary of State for Health about the matter.
	I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the many people who have worked so hard to make improvements to mental health services. Some have dedicated their lives to that work. I recognise the importance of the community wanting to improve those services, which is clearly an issue in the present case. Too often, mental health services are not considered part of the mainstream. The community is sending an important message that they want to see real improvements and to ensure that the best services are available.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the importance of early intervention services for people who are starting to experience the first symptoms of psychosis. Many such teams have been established across south London. They reduce the risk of people reaching crisis point and having to be admitted to hospital at a later stage. They can often help people to get back into work more quickly, if that is appropriate, and they can generally improve the quality of people's lives.
	A network of home treatment teams has also been established across London. An important part of the reform and modernisation of mental health services is that, if possible, we try to treat people at home who might otherwise be admitted, or who have been admitted but might have had to stay in hospital longer if the home treatment service were not available. We are trying to stop the revolving door syndrome, in which people are discharged from hospital, become unwell and have to be readmitted. That is the general direction of travel, and I am pleased that extra investment has gone into those services, which, together with the dedication and commitment of the staff, have made a real difference.
	I would now like to turn to the issue of the closure of the emergency clinic at the Maudsley hospital. As the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell)—know, the Secretary of State for Health made a number of statements in her reply to the Lambeth and Southwark joint health scrutiny committee about how she wanted the proposals to go forward. She tried to respond to the concerns set out by the committee in its referral letter.
	The Secretary of State obviously took views from the local NHS, from Department of Health officials and from the national clinical director for mental health, while acknowledging that the views of stakeholders and others had been put forward by the joint committee. She concluded that the closure of the emergency clinic would be in line with the mental health national service framework and other departmental policy, because it focused on meeting the needs of service users primarily through strengthened community provision and accident and emergency provision. The hon. Gentleman will know that that provision involves 24-hour access to emergency assessment and treatment, and that, as far as possible, there should be proper crisis teams in place.
	I should also stress that the Secretary of State agreed with the committee that the other elements of the local mental health crisis system need to be sufficient to meet the needs of mental health service users in the absence of the emergency clinic. Local stakeholders need to be confident that this is the case, particularly in relation to local A and E services, which the committee and other local stakeholders highlighted as a specific concern. It has become absolutely clear that there is a commitment that, when the clinic closes, there will be 24/7 cover across Lambeth and Southwark.
	The Secretary of State has welcomed the fact that the local NHS has strengthened its proposals, after the referral by the joint scrutiny committee, to create a designated space at King's College hospital, adjacent to the A and E unit, which is across the road from the emergency clinic, to provide a safe and segregated area for mental health service users requiring assessment. I also understand that NHS London has agreed to provide capital funding of £6 million to enable the proposed changes to be put in place. In addition, I am informed that the Southwark and Lambeth primary care trusts are going to commission a wide range of mental health and 24-hour crisis mental health services of a high standard. The Secretary of State wants those proposals to be tested and agreed locally through a robust implementation plan, as the hon. Gentleman said, with input from key stakeholders, to ensure a smooth transition following the closure of the emergency clinic.

Simon Hughes: The Minister of State must know, and the Secretary of State must be told, that the plan at the moment is that the emergency clinic will close in a matter of weeks. There cannot be the people, the capital, the revenue or the arrangements over the road to replicate—or anything like replicate—what the emergency clinic currently provides. At the moment, we have a closure planned but absolutely no guarantee of an emergency clinic facility continuing after that, which is simply not acceptable.

Rosie Winterton: I met the chief executives of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Southwark PCT about their plans for implementation. I was advised by them that closing the clinic would enable the trust to direct resources—clinical staff as well as financial resources—where it feels that they can most benefit patients. The local NHS also thinks that the current system of crisis care is quite complex and confusing and needs to be clearer for patients. In particular, I am told that the clinic's facilities are not designed for people with complex problems who perhaps need to stay overnight while awaiting further assessment, as there is inadequate space and a lack of privacy and dignity. The walk-in facility is sometimes closed because people must stay in the clinic overnight. The trust thinks that that is not good enough.
	An important part of providing people with effective care is getting a clear, written plan of care agreed between health professionals and patients, focusing on what to do when somebody is experiencing a mental health crisis, what the individual's trigger-point symptoms for a crisis are, what help is available and how to get it. I am informed that the trust is going through plans for every person who has used the clinic in the past year to ensure that that is in place.
	As I have said, extra investment will be made available. I am conscious of the point made about reassurance, and I will refer to the Secretary of State, the Strategic Health Authority and the PCT the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the transition process. I hope that that will allow us to move forward and give people the confidence that they are asking for. It is important that we move forward with the plans in consultation with local stakeholders to ensure that replacements for the clinic meet the needs of patients and the public in the area.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.